Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y This article started life when I was asked to write a comparison of x86 and PowerPC CPUs for work. We produce PowerPC based systems and are often asked why we use PowerPC CPUs instead of x86 so a comparison is rather useful. While I have had an interest in CPUs for quite some time but I have never explored this issue in any detail so writing the document proved an interesting exercise. I thought my conclusions would be of interest to OSNews readers so I've done more research and written this new, rather more detailed article. This article is concerned with the technical differences between the families not the market differences.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re RE Multiple
by SteveToth on Wed 9th Jul 2003 18:06 UTC


Also at the end of your article you predict (as many others have in the past) that Intel will hit the 'heat wall'

Microprocessor Report said that, not me.

Problem is that they assume that Intel will not change some aspect of their technology. Yes, Intel will have to change some part of their physical design or logical layout in order to compensate for the laws of physics. However, that doesn't mean that x86 code can not scale to higher and higher speeds. Just that the way it is executed will have to change. As it has already done multiple times over the x86 lifetime.


Both IBM and the Alpha team announced the addition of Multithreading support was expected to give a 100% boost in performance.

When HT arrived it gave only 20% - 30%, I believe it is to be enhanced soon.

http://meseec.ce.rit.edu/eecc722-fall2002/722-9-16-2002.pdf
This class lecture ( brought to you via google with "SMT DEC alpha speedup") proves that yes, in certain cases you can get a 100% speedup using SMT. Problem is that not all applications are going to be able to achieve that speedup (YMMV) and will have to be recoded (or at least recompiled) for SMT, as it requires the code to be processor aware.