| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Analysis: x86 Vs PPC | |
|
||
| Time: 17:55 EST/22:55 GMT | News Source: OS News | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
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. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 483 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:27:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/9/2003 6:24:32 PM |
|
I don't think the author understands history.
Windows NT was originally written for the MIPS RISC processor. It's been ported to the Alpha and PowerPC in the past. All because people at Microsoft felt that those processors would represent the future of computing. That theory never panned out. Every time someone who is a proponent of RISC has said, "There is no way Intel can improve their processor further" Intel has improved their processor further. Maybe some day this prediction will hold true, but history shows it to be unlikely. |
| #2 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 7/9/2003 7:30:21 PM |
| Your notion that MS's interests in other architectures was motivated solely by the idea that Intel would not be able to improve their chip design and/or that their decision not to pursue other designs is solely due to those designs inability to perform as well as x86 is as simple-minded and misinformed as the opinion of the author. |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/9/2003 11:21:36 PM |
|
Always trying to start an argument, eh jerky boy?
I never said that Microsoft's decisions were based solely on that one point. That point, which was in a second paragraph was in referal to this article as well. |
| #4 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 7/10/2003 1:08:58 AM |
|
4) Heat problems
What is going to be a hurdle for x86 systems is heat. x86 CPUs already get hot and require considerable cooling but this is getting worse and eventually it will hit a wall. A report by the publishers of Microprocessor Report indicated that Intel is expected to start hitting the heat wall in 2004. x86 CPUs generate a great deal of heat because they are pushed to give maximum performance but because of their inefficient instruction set this takes a lot of energy. In order to compete with one another AMD and Intel will need to keep upping their clock rates and running their chips at the limit, their chips are going to get hotter and hotter. You may not think heat is important but once you put a number of computers together heat becomes a real problem as does the cost of electricity. The x86's cost advantage becomes irrelevant when the cooling system costs many times the cost of the computers. RISC CPUs like the 970 are at a distinct advantage here as they give competitive performance at significantly lower power consumption, they don't need to be pushed to their limit to perform. Once they get a die shrink into the next process generation power consumption for the existing performance will go down. This strategy looks set to continue in the next generation POWER5. I guess he hasn't seen the ultra-large heatsinsks and 9+ fans in Apple's G5 cases. Heat appears to be a problem for the 970 as well. The 2GHz part likely dissipates over 50 watts (IBM docs show estimates of 42 watts at 1.8 GHz). The statements also ignore core improvements and die shrinks on the x86 side. Many parts of this article sound like a shill for the PowerPC more than a clear technical comparison. |
| #5 By 2960 (156.80.64.196) at 7/10/2003 2:54:26 PM |
|
#4,
"I guess he hasn't seen the ultra-large heatsinsks and 9+ fans in Apple's G5 cases. Heat appears to be a problem for the 970 as well. The 2GHz part likely dissipates over 50 watts (IBM docs show estimates of 42 watts at 1.8 GHz). " You are mis-understanding Apple's use of the Ultra-Large Heatsinks and 9+ fans in the new G5 machines. It's all about thermal AND NOISE management. They could have used a lot less, but ended up with a far less quiet & efficient system. It's rather facinating, actually. If you google around some, you can find some decent articles on the design. TL |
| #6 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 7/10/2003 3:06:11 PM |
|
They could have used different fans that push more air yet are still reletively quiet, or used some sort of heatpipe solution with fewer fans.
Either way, the case design isn't important. What's important is that (as stated in my previous post), the G5 has its own heat problems. This is preventing Apple from releasing a G5 laptop in the near future (though they could probably use a lower-clocked part like 1GHz or so). But the main thing is, the guy says that heat is no problem for G5, it'll be overcome through process improvements, etc. Yet he totally ignores the fact that similar process improvements will occur on the x86 side as well, and faster than on the PPC side due to the more frequent release schedule for x86 CPUs. He's using selective inclusion of information to shill for the PPC. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 483 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:27:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
