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.
encia get back on subject
by stingerman on Thu 17th Jul 2003 08:01 UTC

Still, you sidestep the issue of Desktop. That is all I'm talking about and in the context of this article it was desktop vs desktop. So when you look at the high-end desktop processors, we are talking about 970 vs Athlon64 vs Xeon. Recent benchmarks show the 2GHz Athlon64 barely beating a Pentium at 2.6 GHz, so that suggests that Apple has the advantage.

I doubt we will see a 64-bit version of XP anytime soon, but we will probably see the 32-bit version shimmied to work on the Athlon64. If you want to compare server systems, the Power4 beats the Itanium and Opteron hands down. The PPC architecture is simply a more modern design and IBM engineers have a lot of flexibility in implementation while maintaining binary compatibility with other PPC implementations based on completely different designs. Intel engineers do not have the same luxury.