![[Spectre]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/89/89728.jpg?1455675927){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,697
Nasty_Savage said:
Since noone seems to have directly addressed this........no.
The XBOX 2 or whatever it will be called yes.
Sorry if this is dreading up a dead thread.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
How much better are Apple/IBM PowerPCs compared to x86 Athlon64/Pentium4 ??
- Thread starter ShePearl
- Start date
Since noone seems to have directly addressed this........no.
The XBOX 2 or whatever it will be called yes.
Sorry if this is dreading up a dead thread.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,697
ShePearl said:
Your article forgot to look in the mirror
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/24/apple_accused_of_cheating_over/
http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5105661.html?tag=st_rn
http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5180251.html?tag=nefd_top
Advertising and benchmark twisting at it's best.
So is PPC better than x86...........it is probably a push.
Because your a moron,ShePearl said:Hmm... I think you're mis-informed (no disrespect). I'm quite sure Apple/IBM's PowerPC CPU is the performance king when it comes to "desktop" CPUs. Just not sure how much better they are compared to aged x86 based CPUs such as Athlon64, and Pentium4.
Also, bear in mind that I'm comparing CPU performance aspect only.
Any freaking x86 processor will be better in gaming than powerpc and AMDfx IS BETTER IN VIDEO EDITING [POWERPC MAIN PURPOSE]
bountyhunter
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 777
Good thing you mentioned mobile chips(whoever that was)
as a PM would absolutely rape a G5.
as a PM would absolutely rape a G5.
NEVERLIFT said:
Your compairing OS X 10.1 in which like win 95 it worked but had problems, 98 was not great until SE. Etc 10.1 was like 95 in the sense it was very different and need the kinks worked out try 10.3 and you see a major dif. Plus thats a G4 verus a P4. I would like to see that test rerun as I like both sides and know that there is a hugh difference that most do not see till they use a mac as a system they learn to like. OS X 10.3 is much faster and different with its unix base then windows nt which has been controlling the market. Its not odd to find programs running quicker for that OS since they are changed over for OS X much of the time. Just food for thought.
Back to the topic, I want to see how it performs. If Microsoft (Windows Giant) is using Mac/IBM tech then what does that say for there long supports through Intel?
They must be better performer.. but how much better are Apple/IBM's PowerPC CPUs compared to PCs (Pentium4, Athlon64) ?
I've got a AMD64 box and a PPC970 blade server. Single 3700+ (2.4ghz) CPU w/2G ram beats out the dual 1.6G 970 w/2G ram in the blade for compiling code using SuSE SLES 8. You can, however, fit a lot of PPC blades into one chassis...
I've got a AMD64 box and a PPC970 blade server. Single 3700+ (2.4ghz) CPU w/2G ram beats out the dual 1.6G 970 w/2G ram in the blade for compiling code using SuSE SLES 8. You can, however, fit a lot of PPC blades into one chassis...
Spammy1984
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2002
- Messages
- 146
KarFai said:The original point of this thread was about the XBox 2 and why it was using a PPC chip. For the most part it's piracy. The XBox was the only deviation of consoles using mainstream chips. They basicly made a small very powerful computer into a console, and look what it got them. My XBox basicly is my main computer, I have a keyboard, mouse, linux, games, ect... even media ripping. I can sit back on my insanely nice couch chair and use it in ease. They want to limit piracy. Not many Linux distro's are coded/compiled for ppc, infact I would venture to guess that ppc has less then 10% of all the software created. They also want to limit the knowledge of the chip to a little as possible to stop hackers.
As to the PPC vs x86, it's a toss up. Depends on the application you need. For consoles you don't need a 2.5ghz chip, I mean look at the XBox now... it's visuals are as stunning as most people's computers (most users of this forum are enthuasists, so please keep you comments of running at 1600xwhatever resolutions to yourself, you aren't a normal user.
Personally, just looking at the way things are progressing AMD has the upper hand IMHO, they haven't hit the ghz wall yet, they make very cheap high preformance processors, and they don't need water cooling to make their computers run. I, and most likely many people don't care about how the instructions are processed, we care more about ease of use, price, ect....
Uhh... 100% wrong. EVERY linux distro will run on a PPC. thats the beauty of linux it'll run on basically anything its platform independant.
From reading on various Apple forums, when asking about will Linux run on Mac's the only distro ever brought up is Yellow Dog, while you are right that you "can" run linux on everything how many main distro's offer PPC versions? Not trying to start a fight, but I'm wondering.
SUSe has one... if you really want to know I can link you to a web page that will show you a few more, Xandros has a PPC version as does Mandrake. Not sure on Fedora though, I do not think... well Yellow Dog is Fedora so I guess you can consider that the Fedora for PPC.
"Dude.. RISC is coming back!"
RISC processors like the Power5 will always be superior to x86 processors due to the sheer fact that they aren't controlled by numbers based marketing that capitalizes on the end users lack of computer knowledge. There is a reason the Power series powers Mainframes. Scalability, Dedpendability, and Robustness. It does its job very well/efficient, it does not need to do it fast, it just needs to be able to do alot of it (processing millions of transactions a second) with slim to no margin for error. x86's are built and marketed to a completely different sector meant to be fast, look fast, and not care about efficiency. They can do alot, but only because they are fast, not because they are efficient.
Its like comparing a exotic car's v12 to a semi's diesel v12. They both do the same job, just that the diesel is more efficient at it eventhough it isn't as fast.
RISC processors like the Power5 will always be superior to x86 processors due to the sheer fact that they aren't controlled by numbers based marketing that capitalizes on the end users lack of computer knowledge. There is a reason the Power series powers Mainframes. Scalability, Dedpendability, and Robustness. It does its job very well/efficient, it does not need to do it fast, it just needs to be able to do alot of it (processing millions of transactions a second) with slim to no margin for error. x86's are built and marketed to a completely different sector meant to be fast, look fast, and not care about efficiency. They can do alot, but only because they are fast, not because they are efficient.
Its like comparing a exotic car's v12 to a semi's diesel v12. They both do the same job, just that the diesel is more efficient at it eventhough it isn't as fast.
Spammy1984 said:
Yes and no. It was originally developped on the 386/486, for the 32-bit Intel architecture. It only works on PPC, Alpha, or x86_64 because people have spent time porting it.
I believe what you are referring to is the fact that most of the code is plain C code, which can be compiled on various compilers designed for a given architecture.
sieb said:
RISC is not always efficient - just look at the code density you can achieve on an x86 processor. A single instruction, although complex, can replace several instructions.
Besides, as has been pointed out several times in various threads; most modern x86 CPUs are internally RISC anyways! There is a decoder on the "front" of them, which translates the x86 code into micro-ops.
Spammy1984
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2002
- Messages
- 146
Josh_B said:
Exactly thats just it and its all open source and predominatly ANSI C, which just requires a simple compile if there aren't binaries for your particular distro.
Oh, and as far as most distros not running on PPC, I've personally never seen a distro that does not supply a kernel for the PPC arcitecture and I've played around with quite a few. SuSE and Gentoo being what I use now.
Dude, RISC was never gone.sieb said:
Yeah, you're right. A company like Apple would NEVER prey on the stupidity of the masses, or resort to marketing tricks to sell machines. Think Different?
Because IBM sells it. IBM makes the chip and the machine. What choice do you have? If you have a hundred legacy applications that only run on an IBM series machine, and only IBM has the portability tools to convert your old apps to run on a new box, what do you do? You buy IBM, and that's it.
First, you're contradicting yourself. Second, any allowable margin of error removes the halo effect of "Dependability".
You're over-generalizing. There are many different types of X86 Processors. There are many different types of RISC processors. You can't ballpark that one group is better than the other. You could say something like "RISC processors are better because they can natively run out of order operations without having to convert to another instruction set." That would be smart. But instead you make blanket generalizations that make no sense with no logic, details, or examples.
Crack: It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Seriously, I'm not trying to piss on your parade, but please do your homework before you make random statements about CPU architecture.
Matt.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
No doubt, the semi's use inline-6 turbo desiels not V-12's.
More like comparing a Ferrari 3.6L V-8 to a corvette 6.0L V8 both make 400hp but the 3.6L has to rev to 8500rpms to do vs the chevy only reving to 6K.
The chevy makes 400lb-ft of torque at 4400rpms and the ferrari only makes 275lb/ft @4750rpm
So much like risc the chevy doesn't need to have as many cycles per second to generate the same amout of power or do the same amount of work as the ferrari (P4) that needs the cycles because its design requires more cycles per second in order to do a similar work load.
And when it's all said and done the cars are with 1sec of each other around the track so which is the better design?
More like comparing a Ferrari 3.6L V-8 to a corvette 6.0L V8 both make 400hp but the 3.6L has to rev to 8500rpms to do vs the chevy only reving to 6K.
The chevy makes 400lb-ft of torque at 4400rpms and the ferrari only makes 275lb/ft @4750rpm
So much like risc the chevy doesn't need to have as many cycles per second to generate the same amout of power or do the same amount of work as the ferrari (P4) that needs the cycles because its design requires more cycles per second in order to do a similar work load.
And when it's all said and done the cars are with 1sec of each other around the track so which is the better design?