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.
by df on Wed 9th Jul 2003 18:52 UTC

well actually this article tells the reader, little if anything about the PPC. its all about the x86.
as for ibm/alpha 100% SMT increase vs intels 30%.
i gotta laugh sooo hard here. to have a 100% increase, that would indicate the ppc architecture is so far below the x86 for parralellisng instructions and filling the pipe with uops that its beyond a joke. i'd bet realworld performace would be in similar ballpark as to intels 30%.

x86 is built on a 1979 legacy, ppc 1993, so much has been learned about processor design from 79<>93. so i would expect ppc to best x86 for its a new clean design.

so too would i expect ia64 to best ppc, since its again a new clean design with no cruft, postdating ppc.

and so on.