Fav CPU architecture
Posted: 2004-11-09 12:21am
Whats your Fav CPU architecture?
Mine goes
1.)x86
2.)mips
3.)shx series
*Note where x is, is a number.
Mine goes
1.)x86
2.)mips
3.)shx series
*Note where x is, is a number.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=56685
Uh, okey, weird topic, since we're not all uber geeks.Tech^salvager wrote:Whats your Fav CPU architecture?
Mine goes
1.)x86
2.)mips
3.)shx series
*Note where x is, is a number.
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.Ace Pace wrote: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.
Ya, I meant well, brain locked up in the morning, still the number of hack jobs and still be useful.Eleas wrote:
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>
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.Ace Pace wrote: And its the design that brang PC's into the mass market.
Yes Gamecube had a PPC in it not sure which one, but the PS2 did not have a ppc cpu.Praxis wrote:The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so
Well, I remember it had a RISC processor of some sort...Tech^salvager wrote:Yes Gamecube had a PPC in it not sure which one, but the PS2 did not have a ppc cpu.Praxis wrote:The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so
Its a MIPs CPU in the PS2Praxis wrote:Well, I remember it had a RISC processor of some sort...Tech^salvager wrote:Yes Gamecube had a PPC in it not sure which one, but the PS2 did not have a ppc cpu.Praxis wrote:The G3's were...okay. They did go in the GameCube and I think PS2, so
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
Yes they were made to be workstations but they can easliy be used for desktop computers.phongn wrote: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.
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.Praxis wrote: 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
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.Tech^salvager wrote:Yes they were made to be workstations but they can easliy be used for desktop computers.phongn wrote: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.
Nope, go ahead.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:Pu-239 wrote:How come no one has mentioned the Alpha (or does this exclude workstations and servers)?
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 Kernel wrote: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.Praxis wrote: 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
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 Macsphongn wrote: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.
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.Praxis wrote: 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.
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".Praxis wrote: 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
Out of current architectures, than I would favor POWER/PowerPC.The Kernel wrote:Because Alpha is effectively dead, EV8 will never see the light of day. The only remaining major desktop/workstation/server CPU architectures are:Pu-239 wrote:How come no one has mentioned the Alpha (or does this exclude workstations and servers)?
PowerPC
x86
SPARC
IA-64/EPIC
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.Pu-239 wrote: 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.
How fast will an Opteron emulate PPC? Not very fast.Praxis wrote: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
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.I've seen several articles that stated XBox 2 will be using a custom PPC-based IBM chip.
Your blatant fanboyism blinds you to the truth.Now, they may be wrong or I may be misunderstanding it, and if so, please enlighten me.
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.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.
I thought you just said that there was no indication the XBox Next would be using PPC?phongn wrote:How fast will an Opteron emulate PPC? Not very fast.Praxis wrote: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
Two of those links weren't rumors.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.I've seen several articles that stated XBox 2 will be using a custom PPC-based IBM chip.
I was asking an honest question here, not being sarcastic. You don't have to respond with insults.Your blatant fanboyism blinds you to the truth.Now, they may be wrong or I may be misunderstanding it, and if so, please enlighten me.
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.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.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.
Ah, okay, never heard of an alpha.Alpha was, IIRC, a fairly hot processor as well and it was a RISC design.
PPC970. I said nothing about a processor using the PPC ISA in general.Praxis wrote:I thought you just said that there was no indication the XBox Next would be using PPC?
Only one outright said that Nintendo may be using a G5. The Inq is hardly a reputable source.Two of those links weren't rumors.
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.I was asking an honest question here, not being sarcastic. You don't have to respond with insults.
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.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.