Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
Permalink for comment 542518
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
I don't know the specific answer to that question. What I do know is that alphas were a generation or two ahead of x86 back in the 90's in terms of performance and they were effectively killed by politics as soon as compaq and HP merged.
Sparcs were better too, but Sun/Oracle have always ben kind of a pain to deal with. But yeah, if Sparcs were doing better than they are now for workstation/desktop class computers I'd feel better.
MIPS? Don't know much about the arch other than its not really around, other than the Chinese processor and in the embedded side everyone seems to be choosing arm over mips.
ARM? I do kind of feel better now that arm is making its way up from the bottom. It will be interesting to see if they can really match x86 on the higher end rather than just being more energy efficient.