Fav CPU architecture

[Tech^salvager]

Whats your Fav CPU architecture?
Mine goes
1.)x86
2.)mips
3.)shx series

*Note where x is, is a number.

[Ace Pace]

Whats your Fav CPU architecture?
Mine goes
1.)x86
2.)mips
3.)shx series

*Note where x is, is a number.

Uh, okey, weird topic, since we're not all uber geeks.

Personally, it would be the X86, damn its holding up for 20+ years, with dozens of not houndreds of hack jobs done to it, from 16-bit to 64-bit, from text to advance 3D graphics, it can do it all.

[Eleas]

Uh, okey, weird topic, since we're not all uber geeks.

Personally, it would be the X86, damn its holding up for 20+ years, with dozens of not houndreds of hack jobs done to it, from 16-bit to 64-bit, from text to advance 3D graphics, it can do it all.

I'm sorry, but "it can do it all"? All of these operations are, in essence, nothing more than bit pushing. Any chip architecture can do it all. Wouldn't be a computer otherwise.

Maybe it can do it all well, and that's what you meant... </anal-retentive>

[Ace Pace]

I'm sorry, but "it can do it all"? All of these operations are, in essence, nothing more than bit pushing. Any chip architecture can do it all. Wouldn't be a computer otherwise.

Maybe it can do it all well, and that's what you meant... </anal-retentive>

Ya, I meant well, brain locked up in the morning, still the number of hack jobs and still be useful.

And its the design that brang PC's into the mass market.

[Eleas]

And its the design that brang PC's into the mass market.

Yeah, but let's face it - Motorola 68xxx would have done equally well. IBM / M$ simply chose to subvert the business minded rather than the high-end gamers (Amiga) or the publishing folks (Mac), who would always be tightly niched groups.

In the end, we know who triumphed.

[Praxis]

My favorite would probably be PowerPC. Specifically, the 970.

The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so they can't be all bad.
The G4's were sweet, the only problem was Motorola increased the speed too slowly so it came down to 1.42 GHz G4's vs 3 GHz Pentium 4's. Even with the mhz myth, it was a huge difference.

The thing I really like about the G4 though was that it was a DESKTOP processor that was less than 25w (or was it 10w?). The desktop G4 could be stuck in a PowerBook with the tiniest of fans without making the frame melt, and keeping the battery going for 4-5 hours.

The G5 is a totally sweet processor...even the next gen consoles are switching to it. 2.5 GHz + MHz Myth + 64-bit = totally sweet.

So...

1) PowerPC
2) x86-64 (AMD)
3) x86

[Tech^salvager]

The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so

Yes Gamecube had a PPC in it not sure which one, but the PS2 did not have a ppc cpu.

[Praxis]

The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so

Yes Gamecube had a PPC in it not sure which one, but the PS2 did not have a ppc cpu.

Well, I remember it had a RISC processor of some sort...

Anyway, I perfer RISC processors, but since there's only two architectures that are actually used in desktops (PPC and x86) it's an easy choice

[Tech^salvager]

The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so

Yes Gamecube had a PPC in it not sure which one, but the PS2 did not have a ppc cpu.

Well, I remember it had a RISC processor of some sort...

Anyway, I perfer RISC processors, but since there's only two architectures that are actually used in desktops (PPC and x86) it's an easy choice

Its a MIPs CPU in the PS2

Wrong you probably never heard of a indy or indigo have you? Now they are the two common architectures that are used in teh desktop.

[phongn]

I've always liked the PowerPC architecture. X86 is something of a kludge, especially with all the extensions added onto it over the years.

MIPS is not a desktop processor in any way. Yes, SGI used to be big on MIPS but those were for workstations, not desktop machines.

There is no indication that the Xbox2 will be using the PPC 970. Yes, the development machines are PowerMac G5s, but that might just be because they're the only desktop PPC machines fast enough to do the job. There is no evidence that Sony or Nintendo will be using it either.

The G4 wasn't really designed as a desktop processor, it is more an embedded processor drafted into use as a desktop processor. Ever wonder why MPX stayed around for so long?

[Tech^salvager]

MIPS is not a desktop processor in any way. Yes, SGI used to be big on MIPS but those were for workstations, not desktop machines.

Yes they were made to be workstations but they can easliy be used for desktop computers.

[The Kernel]

Well, I remember it had a RISC processor of some sort...

Anyway, I perfer RISC processors, but since there's only two architectures that are actually used in desktops (PPC and x86) it's an easy choice

Uh huh. Want to tell us why you prefer RISC processors? The whole RISC vs. CISC thing has become largely irrelevent with the widespread use of microcode instructions. In effect, all modern CPU's (yes, even x86) ARE RISC. There are drawbacks to the x86 architecture, but the whole RISC/CISC thing is nothing more than a buzzword used by Apple fanboys.

[The Kernel]

MIPS is not a desktop processor in any way. Yes, SGI used to be big on MIPS but those were for workstations, not desktop machines.

Yes they were made to be workstations but they can easliy be used for desktop computers.

No it wasn't. MIPS was designed for embedded applications, it just turned out to be a rather flexible design and a lot of programmers had experience in it from the integrated market so it was cheap to develop on.

[Pu-239]

How come no one has mentioned the Alpha (or does this exclude workstations and servers)?

[Tech^salvager]

How come no one has mentioned the Alpha (or does this exclude workstations and servers)?

Nope, go ahead.
But I never used one yet. So I can't comment on it.
Thanks for the update The Kernel

[The Kernel]

How come no one has mentioned the Alpha (or does this exclude workstations and servers)?

Because Alpha is effectively dead, EV8 will never see the light of day. The only remaining major desktop/workstation/server CPU architectures are:

PowerPC
x86
SPARC
IA-64/EPIC

[Praxis]

Well, I remember it had a RISC processor of some sort...

Anyway, I perfer RISC processors, but since there's only two architectures that are actually used in desktops (PPC and x86) it's an easy choice

Uh huh. Want to tell us why you prefer RISC processors? The whole RISC vs. CISC thing has become largely irrelevent with the widespread use of microcode instructions. In effect, all modern CPU's (yes, even x86) ARE RISC. There are drawbacks to the x86 architecture, but the whole RISC/CISC thing is nothing more than a buzzword used by Apple fanboys.

Generally less power consumption. It may have nothing to do with RISC or CISC, but most CISC processors (x86) generate a ton of heat while most RISC don't (the ARM in GameBoy is virtually heatless, the PPC in my GameCube generates no noticeable heat from outside the case, etc).

The CISC processors I've used generally heat up like a furnace.

[Praxis]

There is no indication that the Xbox2 will be using the PPC 970. Yes, the development machines are PowerMac G5s, but that might just be because they're the only desktop PPC machines fast enough to do the job. There is no evidence that Sony or Nintendo will be using it either.

Fast enough to do the job? A dual Opteron system will work just the same, and not force MS to give up their pride using Macs

http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,61065,00.html

I've seen several articles that stated XBox 2 will be using a custom PPC-based IBM chip.

The rumor for the Nintendo Revolution is dual 1.8 or single 2.7 GHz G5. http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559 ... ?fromint=1

And this states that IBM chips will be in Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo next-gen consoles:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/17 ... r_nextgen/

Now, they may be wrong or I may be misunderstanding it, and if so, please enlighten me.

[The Kernel]

Generally less power consumption. It may have nothing to do with RISC or CISC, but most CISC processors (x86) generate a ton of heat while most RISC don't (the ARM in GameBoy is virtually heatless, the PPC in my GameCube generates no noticeable heat from outside the case, etc).

The CISC processors I've used generally heat up like a furnace.

This is not inherent to the x86 design. The Pentium-M processor is faster on a clock for clock basis then a PPC in most tasks and it consumes far less power. With the addition of a proper SIMD unit, dual channel memory, fast bus and 64-bit instructions, it might increase the power draw by 10W (and I'm being very generous here) and would be universally faster then a PPC970 at the same clockrate. Heat is a function of specific CPU design much more than its instructions set.

As for your specific examples of integrated chips, x86 was never designed for integrated purposes nor is it popular in those functions. The Pentium-M and perhaps the Tualitin while being desktop chips are perhaps the most integrated design x86 has ever seen. There is little reason to make x86 into a more integrated design since the primary reason behind x86's popularity is its enormous code base which is largely irrelevent in integrated applications.

[The Kernel]

Fast enough to do the job? A dual Opteron system will work just the same, and not force MS to give up their pride using Macs

It's not a question of pride, it's a question of cost/benefit. If IBM was willing to offer a three chip PPC package for the Xbox Next at even $5 less than an AMD solution, Microsoft would be forced to go with the PPC in order to protect its margins. Choices for console CPU's have much more to do with cost reduction then anything else due to the unique market conditions of "dumping".

[Pu-239]

How come no one has mentioned the Alpha (or does this exclude workstations and servers)?

Because Alpha is effectively dead, EV8 will never see the light of day. The only remaining major desktop/workstation/server CPU architectures are:

PowerPC
x86
SPARC
IA-64/EPIC

Out of current architectures, than I would favor POWER/PowerPC.

Of course, this whole thread is pure fanboyism, since nobody here would use anything other than x86/x86_64 for normal usage except the small number of Mac fans.

[The Kernel]

Out of current architectures, than I would favor POWER/PowerPC.

Of course, this whole thread is pure fanboyism, since nobody here would use anything other than x86/x86_64 for normal usage except the small number of Mac fans.

For the most part, although it isn't hard to objectively analyze the benefits of the various instruction sets. I am partial to the IA-64 myself since I like the VLIW inspired design along with the huge potential for performance over time if it is ever give a chance on the desktop. As far as practicality goes though, I'm not budging from x86 in the foreseeable future.

[phongn]

Fast enough to do the job? A dual Opteron system will work just the same, and not force MS to give up their pride using Macs

How fast will an Opteron emulate PPC? Not very fast.

I've seen several articles that stated XBox 2 will be using a custom PPC-based IBM chip.

Yes. There is nothing substantial to say that it will be PPC970-based. Same goes for Sony and Nintendo's next-generation machines. We have only rumours, and the usage of a high-power processor makes absolutely no sense.

Now, they may be wrong or I may be misunderstanding it, and if so, please enlighten me.

Your blatant fanboyism blinds you to the truth.

Generally less power consumption. It may have nothing to do with RISC or CISC, but most CISC processors (x86) generate a ton of heat while most RISC don't (the ARM in GameBoy is virtually heatless, the PPC in my GameCube generates no noticeable heat from outside the case, etc).

The CISC processors I've used generally heat up like a furnace.

PPC is hardly RISC (see: AltiVec) and most x86 processors have more in common with RISC designs now since they break up big x86 instructions into much smaller ones. You also ignored the rather high thermal dissipation from the G5 and highly-clocked G4e.

Alpha was, IIRC, a fairly hot processor as well and it was a RISC design.

[Praxis]

Fast enough to do the job? A dual Opteron system will work just the same, and not force MS to give up their pride using Macs

How fast will an Opteron emulate PPC? Not very fast.

I thought you just said that there was no indication the XBox Next would be using PPC?

I've seen several articles that stated XBox 2 will be using a custom PPC-based IBM chip.

Yes. There is nothing substantial to say that it will be PPC970-based. Same goes for Sony and Nintendo's next-generation machines. We have only rumours, and the usage of a high-power processor makes absolutely no sense.

Two of those links weren't rumors.

Now, they may be wrong or I may be misunderstanding it, and if so, please enlighten me.

Your blatant fanboyism blinds you to the truth.

I was asking an honest question here, not being sarcastic. You don't have to respond with insults.

Generally less power consumption. It may have nothing to do with RISC or CISC, but most CISC processors (x86) generate a ton of heat while most RISC don't (the ARM in GameBoy is virtually heatless, the PPC in my GameCube generates no noticeable heat from outside the case, etc).

The CISC processors I've used generally heat up like a furnace.

PPC is hardly RISC (see: AltiVec) and most x86 processors have more in common with RISC designs now since they break up big x86 instructions into much smaller ones. You also ignored the rather high thermal dissipation from the G5 and highly-clocked G4e.

Sure, but the G5 is still less than the Pentium 4 in terms of heat yet on par with the Athlon 64 in terms of speed. I don't know what a G4e is though.

Alpha was, IIRC, a fairly hot processor as well and it was a RISC design.

Ah, okay, never heard of an alpha.

Then forget my comment about perferring RISC over CISC. Doesn't really matter, I guess.

[phongn]

I thought you just said that there was no indication the XBox Next would be using PPC?

PPC970. I said nothing about a processor using the PPC ISA in general.

Two of those links weren't rumors.

Only one outright said that Nintendo may be using a G5. The Inq is hardly a reputable source.

I was asking an honest question here, not being sarcastic. You don't have to respond with insults.

I was giving you an honest answer. The vast majority of your posts in anything remotely resembling cross-platform contention smack of mindless fanboyism. You don't bother learning and continuously repeat the same tired old babble.

Furthermore, calling you a fanboy is mild by the standards of this board. Want me to cease the "insults?" Start learning. The other Mac users on the board don't act like you.

Sure, but the G5 is still less than the Pentium 4 in terms of heat yet on par with the Athlon 64 in terms of speed. I don't know what a G4e is though.

G4e refers to the improved PPC7400 series. The G5 dissipates less heat, yes, but so what? It still produces enough that Apple resorted to liquid cooling methods and AMD's Athlon 64 beats the G5 in most ways anyways.