View Full Version : Hardware talk - CPU architecture

September 26th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Hello Ubunters,

just a little chit chat here, that's what the thread is intended for.
Is x86 the "best" (read: most performing) CPU architecture available?
I am referring to efficiency regardless of clock frequency.

It started while I was having a look at the Sun SPARC processors, and reading about Amiga RISC processors.

Anyone has any useful links on the subject? (apart from Wikipedia)



September 26th, 2007, 09:38 AM
Well back when Apple still used IBM G-series processors they had much lower clock speeds than the Intel Pentium4. Regardless, the Pentium4 took a beating from a G4 running at a much lower clock-speed in certain tasks. This is a fairly informative (and easy to understand) video from Apple that explains variables in CPU performance:

The MHz Myth by Apple (http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/mhz_myth_320f.mov)

I think the ideas presented in the video apply even outside the CPU's being compared. Back when AMD released the Athlon it beat the crap out of Pentiums running at the same clock. Intel has improved recently and I think it's Core2 CPUs now dominate the x86 section. Nevertheless there probably are more efficient designs in use outside home desktop computing.

Edit: I realize this doesn't much delve into the RISC vs. CISC or x86 as architecture but I thought it'd be useful.

September 26th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Quite likely it's the worst.

But it's quite complicated, as there are huge differences between the internal workings of different x86 CPU's.

Anyway, RISC cpu's typically have better performance compared to CISC cpu's..

September 26th, 2007, 10:24 AM

Personally, I think RISC is better. I find them easier to develop for, and generally provide more efficient performance.

September 26th, 2007, 11:35 AM
I prefer risc which is even found at teh core of todays cisc cpus.

The embedded market is ruled by risc cpus.

The only reason we are not all using risc today is because industry fears of backward compatibility and not taking a chance. Blame MS ;)

September 26th, 2007, 11:44 AM
...and Apple too. It's funny how they present everything they do as the second coming of jesus. Not a mention of PowerPC processors when they shifted.


seems differences have blurred over time.....