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
by david on Wed 9th Jul 2003 21:43 UTC

"That said I note that not many have commented on or downright missed the main point of the article - that CISC processors are NOT the same as RISC, and unless Intel or AMD or someone else comes up with a *very* clever design they never will be. "

That's what bothers me a bit. Because really, even if I am not a CPU specialist myself, in all technical articles I have ever read ( ars technica, etc... A good site, French only : http://www.onversity.com/cgi-bin/progdepa/default.cgi?Eudo=bgteob&N... ), it's said that the debate RISC against CISC is dead. For example, I don't understand how you can say that G4 is purely RISC with SIMD units, as it is rather a heavy "unit" in CPU ?

"nd no realworldtech is not "just a step above marketing". It's the most technical of any of the sites I (or anyone else) has referred to. "

I really don't think it. I don't know well realwordtech, but ars technica is really a good reference, even if it is a bit PC biased. And for me, it seems a lot better than realworldtech.

But I liked your article, though.