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.
Okay, still somewhat biased...
by Brian on Wed 9th Jul 2003 20:03 UTC

The article was okay, but still somewhat biased, especially in concluding that RISC processors have always been faster. In my experience in the past 10 years comparing scientific programs to different architectures, especially suns and hps I've always consistently seen average desktop x86 machines being able handle more than 2x the throughput than cutting edge risc boxes more than 20x more expensive.

It all comes down to real competition. The funny part is that everyone always predicts that linux will fragment. What Linux has been doing is defragmenting the hardware vendors.

Freedom from vendor lockin to hardware! Down with MS! Down with Apple!

Man I wish DEC would have gotten a clue and tried to push the Alpha into the consumer arena. But in those years MS truly had a ton of lockin...