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: Bascule
by Roy on Thu 10th Jul 2003 18:24 UTC

The fabrication disadvantage that I was referring to was ONLY volume, which affects cost per CPU. Are you suggesting that IBM will produce as many PPC970s as Intel produces P3s? As I said, technology wise, IBM and Intel are competetive. The G5 is significantly smaller on an equivalent process though, so this may make up for the volume difference. Also, some of pooling of resources from Intel competitors (IBM and AMD) may help alleviate this issue.

Itanium certainly got off to a bad start. Merced (Itanium 1) sucked big time. McKinley (Itanium 2 - largely an HP design, I think) is much more promising though it certainly isn't taking the world by storm. Deerfield (very low cost version of McKinley - ~$800) can either be seen as interesting value or as a last ditch effor for IA64 to gain some marketshare, depending on whether you think Itanium has a future. I personally don't know.