PDA

View Full Version : What's the best arch to have?



dragos240
October 8th, 2009, 12:47 AM
I've heard about x86, ARM, SH4, and others. I saw criticism about the x86 arch in one post in the 'windows users may be using linux 70% of the time' topic. So what architecture is best?

earthpigg
October 8th, 2009, 12:59 AM
you should clarify that when you say 'arch' you are talking about CPU/motherboard Architecture and not Arch Linux.


So what architecture is best?

depends on the purpose.

for home desktop computing, it depends on your priorities.

murderslastcrow
October 8th, 2009, 01:04 AM
Depends on what you mean by best. high-scale PowerPC processors and 64-bit architectures offer a lot of added speed and 64-bit handles processes with better multi-threading techniques. 64-bit at the same speed as the equivalent PowerPC takes up less energy, I think.

Also, if you're going for saving energy, ARM is the best for this process as far as I know. That's why so many netbooks/UMPCs/MIDs have ARM processors.

Also, 32-bit isn't BAD, but it's been around for such a long time... I think the Atom processors and Windows not having many 64-bit ports are the main reason 32-bit is still so big. Oh, and with Linux there's little reason to upgrade your PC, anyway, so that could be contributing to it.

I'm not big on computer science, though- I'd do your research. Google and Wikipedia are often quite reliable.

steev182
October 8th, 2009, 01:09 AM
This is quite a nice Arch:

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/images/gateway_arch2.jpg

5 internets to the first facepalm image in the next minute ;)

dragos240
October 8th, 2009, 01:10 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

steev182
October 8th, 2009, 01:15 AM
:D i love this place

SomeGuyDude
October 8th, 2009, 01:18 AM
5 internets to the first facepalm image in the next minute ;)

http://imgur.com/JdZA1.jpg

dragos240
October 8th, 2009, 01:20 AM
Too late man.

wojox
October 8th, 2009, 01:23 AM
http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/6512/original/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

Xbehave
October 8th, 2009, 02:25 AM
you should clarify that when you say 'arch' you are talking about CPU/motherboard Architecture and not Arch Linux.
No need, we are on UBUNTU forums, it was quite clear from the post.

While x86 is a lame arch, it has the most advanced chips so it will be hard to get the performance you are used to for a desktop/laptop on anything else.
x86_64 is slightly better than x86 because of the bigger addressspace (among otherthings),
ARM (or any risc arch) is much more efficient than x86, however even most successful competitor to x86 (PPC) simply could not keep up.

Where ARM really wins is anywhere you don't want power or efficiencies is more important:

Phones
TVs
Always on devices


Alternatively in a few years with enough chips on a board an ARM based board will have enough power to run a standard desktop (as of now, +high def video decoding), while being much more power efficient.

sideaway
October 8th, 2009, 02:35 AM
ARM is nice. But doesn't have the brute force of x86... It totally depends on your needs, if there was 'one arch to rule them all'... we'd have one that rules them all. But we don't, so therer is no 'best' arch. But +1 for ARCH in netbooks, now that has potential.

kavon89
October 8th, 2009, 02:52 AM
The Z80 architecture is definitely on the cutting edge of computing at the moment. :)

I've always thought SPARC is quite good though, anyone have thoughts on that?

RiceMonster
October 8th, 2009, 03:14 AM
The Z80 architecture is definitely on the cutting edge of computing at the moment. :)

I've always thought SPARC is quite good though, anyone have thoughts on that?

Last I heard SPARC doesn't have many advantages over intel architectures any-more, and it's still more expensive. I'm not an expert in this area though.

Frak
October 8th, 2009, 03:36 AM
Intel. Compatible with more software than any other Arch.

Eisenwinter
October 8th, 2009, 12:37 PM
Intel. Compatible with more software than any other Arch.
If you use this comparsion, then Windows is the best operating system there is.

jespdj
October 8th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Depends on what you mean by best. high-scale PowerPC processors and 64-bit architectures offer a lot of added speed and 64-bit handles processes with better multi-threading techniques. 64-bit at the same speed as the equivalent PowerPC takes up less energy, I think.
There is a reason why Apple switched from PowerPC CPUs to Intel CPUs in 2006 - because the PowerPC CPUs were not keeping up the rapid development in processing speed like the Intel CPUs.

I don't believe your information about how fast and efficient PowerPC is compared to x86 is relevant anymore.

Xbehave
October 8th, 2009, 02:01 PM
There is a reason why Apple switched from PowerPC CPUs to Intel CPUs in 2006 - because the PowerPC CPUs were not keeping up the rapid development in processing speed like the Intel CPUs.
There was also marketing (intel had spread the megahertz myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth)) and windows compatibility. TBH I agree that ppc lagged behind, however given the success of the xbox360, it was defiantly not an insurmountable gap.

koshatnik
October 8th, 2009, 03:50 PM
This is quite a nice Arch:

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/images/gateway_arch2.jpg

5 internets to the first facepalm image in the next minute ;)

Nice arch.

praveesh
October 8th, 2009, 04:36 PM
I was confused by the caption of this thread.

openfly
October 8th, 2009, 04:37 PM
Hands down the best arch, is the flying buttress.

Simian Man
October 8th, 2009, 04:55 PM
There's a difference between an architecture and a micro-architecture. The architecture is the instruction set, register conventions and other details that form the "pact" between software and hardware. x86 is the worst, most convoluted architecture in common usage by far.

A micro-architecture, on the other hand, is an implementation of an architecture, and the best micro-architectures are made for the x86 architecture. They do this not because of the design of x86, but in spite of it. In fact most all of an Intel pipeline works on "micro instructions" which are nothing like real x86 codes, but much closer to the Risc instructions of Sparc and Arm. Basically Intel through a lot of money into working around their abomination of an ISA in order to keep backwards compatibility.

Where alternative architectures are able to work well is in areas where backwards compatibility doesn't matter like consoles and embedded systems.

openfly
October 8th, 2009, 04:59 PM
There's a difference between an architecture and a micro-architecture. The architecture is the instruction set, register conventions and other details that form the "pact" between software and hardware. x86 is the worst, most convoluted architecture in common usage by far.

A micro-architecture, on the other hand, is an implementation of an architecture, and the best micro-architectures are made for the x86 architecture. They do this not because of the design of x86, but in spite of it. In fact most all of an Intel pipeline works on "micro instructions" which are nothing like real x86 codes, but much closer to the Risc instructions of Sparc and Arm. Basically Intel through a lot of money into working around their abomination of an ISA in order to keep backwards compatibility.

Where alternative architectures are able to work well is in areas where backwards compatibility doesn't matter like consoles and embedded systems.

To quote two of the IEEE community's most recognized authorities on the matter...



Indeed. RISC architecture is gonna change everything.




Yeah. RISC is good.

Frak
October 8th, 2009, 09:40 PM
If you use this comparsion, then Windows is the best operating system there is.

For the mass population, yes.


There is a reason why Apple switched from PowerPC CPUs to Intel CPUs in 2006 - because the PowerPC CPUs were not keeping up the rapid development in processing speed like the Intel CPUs.

I don't believe your information about how fast and efficient PowerPC is compared to x86 is relevant anymore.

My G5 PPC (dual core) can smoke just about any C2D if the instruction sets are actually used correctly.

dragos240
October 9th, 2009, 12:37 AM
What about SH4? SH processors rock :p