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.
Read it again, Dawnrider
by Safari on Wed 9th Jul 2003 21:50 UTC

" You can't just throw a piece of entirely un-optimised code at a CPU and expect the initial response to be true of the capabilities of the chip"

Again, I'll post the link, and even throw in a quote for you:

http://www.luxology.net/company/wwdc03followup.aspx

Quote:

"

Luxology uses a custom-built cross platform toolkit to handle all platform-specific operations such as mousing and windowing. All the good bits in our app, the 3D engines, etc, are made up of identical code that is simply recompiled on the various platforms and linked with the appropriate toolkit. It is for this reason that our code is actually quite perfect for a cross platform performance test"

"In fact, the performance tuning was done on Windows and OSX. We used Intel's vTune, AMD's CodeAnalyst and Apple's Shark."


This wasn't un-optimized code, and if they had utilitzed alvitec and SSE, most likely the results would have been even more dispartate.

Again, show me why these developers, who are at the very top of their discipline, in a raw test of CPU performance, did not conduct a fair test, as they claim they did?