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.
Nice attempt
by Harbinjer on Wed 9th Jul 2003 19:53 UTC

This article isn't all that it looks to be. Check his sources, some are just a step above marketing speak. He has very few hard facts, and mostly opinions. You should really check out Arstechnica and Aceshardware, as others have suggested, if you want the real story. They have much more in-depth analyses with real facts, and even benchmarks to test cerain subsystems to make sure they are right. Mr. Blachford attempts to speak with authority, yet he just doesn't seem credible, especailly compared to all the better sources out there. An OSnews comment is hardly an authoritative source. This is more like a college freshman's lab report.

That doesn't not mean that he is totally wrong. He is quite right that the x86 is highly inefficient, and should probbably have died years ago, but it keeps getting more complex and faster.

Regarding ICC, yes it is somewhat biased, however it really can auto-vectorize code, which means that its benchmarks have much highler believability than Apple's old photoshop tests with the hand optimized assembly. I'm not saying that he's completely wrong, just that ICC CAN be that fast in real applications, and doesn't require hand coding assembly.

He seems blatantly biased towards the G3-G5 cpu's, but just because he's biased doesn't mean he's wrong. They are highly efficient, and low power cpu's. The P4 really does seem more market driven than engineering driven.