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.

I have to agree that this guy doesn't really know what he is talking about. He seems to start with a conclusion and then look for ways of justifying it. The ArsTechnica article is VERY good, but it pretty much requires extensive knowledge of computer/processor architecture.

The author seems to enjoy making broad statements without providing real proof. The Power5 SMT vs. Pentium4 HT is particularly blatent (though I have no doubt that Power5 SMT will provide more improvement than Pentium4 SMT, I doubt it will double performance and even then it will only improve parallel stuff - much more important for servers than desktops).

The benchmarking section was also given a cursory treatment. He uses an OSNews post as justification for throwing out ICC results in favor of GCC even though the post doesn't even address that. The part of the post the author refers to correctly points out that SPEC FP performance is NOT indicative of overall system performance because most applications use mainly integer code. This does not invalidate the ICC SPEC FP results or justify Apple's use of GCC. I have read in other locations (Ace's Hardware forums) that ICC does drastically improve performance on real-world floating point intensive code.

I would dismiss this article as blatant fanboyism, but the author seems to believe everything he wrote. Guess he stepped too close to the reality distortion field. Please, throw out this article and look elsewhere (Ace's Hardware and ArsTechnica are both VERY good sites for this type of stuff).