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 Ophidian on Wed 9th Jul 2003 22:40 UTC

if i am remembering correctly, the i960 is either intel's attempt at risc OR their early attempt at a somewhat EPIC like cpu (ie, a cpu that depended extremely heavily on the quality of the compiler and not its own ability to compensate)

as far as the article goes, the bias is horrible. yes, arstechnica is somewhat more biased on the pc side, but i give credit for it not screaming through in their cpu arch articles (one also has to consider that ars had some of the most in depth and extensive osx articles of any site i have seen, and IIRC none of the article staff of ars blatantly dislikes macs nor pcs) i also give kudos to realworldtech. both of these sites are really good places for technical comparasons and reviews.

Any article written by DKE (david every) should be reguarded as marketing propoganda. He isnt able to hold his own in an actual debate on any computer architecture discussion and is shown to be extremely biased, and alot of times blatantly wrong. I have had personal dealings with him in which he equated having drive letters to having "dos underpinnings". on 2k and xp, drive letters are superficial(sp?) for the purpose of software compatability. When he finally backed down from his position (in which he was obviously wrong) the backpeddling was astounding. by his logic, mandrake 9 has dos underpinnings as well because wine provides drive letters to applications in the name of compatability. this is obviously not the case.

this article, OTOH, doesnt really say anything, nor does it really tell you anything. at one point it looks like he is equating heat dissipation measurements power consumption measurements as though 1w for one means 1w for the other ... which is certainly not the case (although the actual relation is fairly linear). if you want to read an article with merit, go to realworldtech or arstechnica. skip the fluff that was this article.

as far as benchmarks go, the number of compilers used should have been increased as well as the oses used.

windows - gcc
linux x86 - gcc
windows - icc
linux x86 - icc
windows - vs
linux ppc - gcc
osx ppc - gcc
osx ppc - codewarrior

spec is cpu AND compiler dependent. they should have also noted the x86 config that is expected to be used more (windows - vs) and the ppc config expected (likely osx and gcc, but maybe cw, not 100% sure, dont know any mac developers who do it for more than a hobby)

for the record im not biased towards any particular cpu arch, im only anti via. i have always liked ppc architecture, if not the macos 9.x and below (and imacs, i really detest the imac look, how friggin gaudy can a computer get?)