Discussion:
PPC/RISC STILL ON!!
(too old to reply)
Adrian Penalo
2009-12-16 06:13:20 UTC
Permalink
The thing is that when it comes to CISC vs. RISC, CPU speed is not
relevant!
There used to be a time were it was relevant... for marketing purposes.
But now, with CPUs sort of stuck at the 2-3ghz range, the speed is less
important and the architecture of the system becomes more important. How
many cores you got, the cache (whether shared between cores or not) and
memory inteconnect become determining factors in performance.
You said it, 'Marketing', not facts. That is why FLOPS is what really
counts!
The Nehalem CPU from Intel brought the Intel 8086 back in the game. AMD
had an euivalent some time ago (forget ehich name it had). Both are the
result of engineers that came from Digital Equipment Corp and who had
work on Alpha (first with many of those designs).
Well, the IBM PowerXCell 8i is not too shabby, you know!
RISC will always be faster at the same numerical speeds!
Not quite. Remeber that a RISC needs to perform many more operations to
get task done.
But with a more efficient reduce set and better register management.
...
PPC/ARM outpaces x86 in all aspects, why you think 90% of all hand-
helds/cells use ARM??
ARM isn't about performance, it is about energy efficency to allow long
battery life.
Right! The same argument that Apple used at the beginning of the
'transition' ("Oh, the PPC is kind of power-hungry for laptops, blah, blah,
blah..."). But the new (circa 2007) Freescale chips like the MPC5121e and
the i.MX515 are all about power efficiency and cost. Don't forget cost,
that was another lie From Jobs (Mac laptops are still as expensive as with
PPCs)!
Why you think Nintendo, Sony, and even Microsoft used PPC??
That is the interesting question. IBM was willing to bend over and
produce Power chips suited for game console, but too interested in
producig chips that Apple needed. Perhaps the market for game consoles
is much larger ?
They did offered, but Jobs basically said, "Apple, using game-console chips?
Never! Let's join the other side"!)
abpp
2009-12-17 06:13:58 UTC
Permalink
I agree!
Post by Adrian Penalo
The thing is that when it comes to CISC vs. RISC, CPU speed is not
relevant!
There used to be a time were it was relevant... for marketing purposes.
But now, with CPUs sort of stuck at the 2-3ghz range, the speed is less
important and the architecture of the system becomes more important. How
many cores you got, the cache (whether shared between cores or not) and
memory inteconnect become determining factors in performance.
You said it, 'Marketing', not facts. That is why FLOPS is what really
counts!
The Nehalem CPU from Intel brought the Intel 8086 back in the game. AMD
had an euivalent some time ago (forget ehich name it had). Both are the
result of engineers that came from Digital Equipment Corp and who had
work on Alpha (first with many of those designs).
Well, the IBM PowerXCell 8i is not too shabby, you know!
RISC will always be faster at the same numerical speeds!
Not quite. Remeber that a RISC needs to perform many more operations to
get  task done.
But with a more efficient reduce set and better register management.
...
PPC/ARM outpaces x86 in all aspects, why you think 90% of all hand-
helds/cells use ARM??
ARM isn't about performance, it is about energy efficency to allow long
battery life.
Right! The same argument that Apple used at the beginning of the
'transition' ("Oh, the PPC is kind of power-hungry for laptops, blah, blah,
blah..."). But the new (circa 2007) Freescale chips like the MPC5121e and
the i.MX515  are all about power efficiency and cost. Don't forget cost,
that was another lie From Jobs (Mac laptops are still as expensive as with
PPCs)!
Why you think Nintendo, Sony, and even Microsoft used PPC??
That is the interesting question. IBM was willing to bend over and
produce Power chips suited for game console, but too interested in
producig chips that Apple needed. Perhaps the market for game consoles
is much larger ?
They did offered, but Jobs basically said, "Apple, using game-console chips?
Never! Let's join the other side"!)
abpp
2010-01-04 06:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Another example that RISC is the way:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10423606-64.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
Post by abpp
I agree!
Post by Adrian Penalo
The thing is that when it comes to CISC vs. RISC, CPU speed is not
relevant!
There used to be a time were it was relevant... for marketing purposes.
But now, with CPUs sort of stuck at the 2-3ghz range, the speed is less
important and the architecture of the system becomes more important. How
many cores you got, the cache (whether shared between cores or not) and
memory inteconnect become determining factors in performance.
You said it, 'Marketing', not facts. That is why FLOPS is what really
counts!
The Nehalem CPU from Intel brought the Intel 8086 back in the game. AMD
had an euivalent some time ago (forget ehich name it had). Both are the
result of engineers that came from Digital Equipment Corp and who had
work on Alpha (first with many of those designs).
Well, the IBM PowerXCell 8i is not too shabby, you know!
RISC will always be faster at the same numerical speeds!
Not quite. Remeber that a RISC needs to perform many more operations to
get  task done.
But with a more efficient reduce set and better register management.
...
PPC/ARM outpaces x86 in all aspects, why you think 90% of all hand-
helds/cells use ARM??
ARM isn't about performance, it is about energy efficency to allow long
battery life.
Right! The same argument that Apple used at the beginning of the
'transition' ("Oh, the PPC is kind of power-hungry for laptops, blah, blah,
blah..."). But the new (circa 2007) Freescale chips like the MPC5121e and
the i.MX515  are all about power efficiency and cost. Don't forget cost,
that was another lie From Jobs (Mac laptops are still as expensive as with
PPCs)!
Why you think Nintendo, Sony, and even Microsoft used PPC??
That is the interesting question. IBM was willing to bend over and
produce Power chips suited for game console, but too interested in
producig chips that Apple needed. Perhaps the market for game consoles
is much larger ?
They did offered, but Jobs basically said, "Apple, using game-console chips?
Never! Let's join the other side"!)
abpp
2010-01-04 07:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Nevermind the FixStars PowerStation. These are better:

http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90004xcpug5.html

http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90004xu.html

Loading...