Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Hardware talk - CPU architecture

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Beans
    319
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Hardware talk - CPU architecture

    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)

    ciao,

    Andre
    AMD Sempron 2400+/512Mb DDR400/ATI Radeon X1300 -->Ubuntu 8.04
    AMD K6-2 350/ 512Mb PC133/ATI Rage --> Ubuntu minimal+LXDE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Beans
    398
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Arrow Re: Hardware talk - CPU architecture

    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

    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.
    Last edited by blueturtl; September 26th, 2007 at 09:53 AM.
    Eternally confused.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Finland/UK
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 16.04 Xenial Xerus

    Re: Hardware talk - CPU architecture

    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..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Beans
    1,097
    Distro
    Xubuntu 15.10 Wily Werewolf

    Re: Hardware talk - CPU architecture

    http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophom...risc/risccisc/

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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Beans
    6,025

    Re: Hardware talk - CPU architecture

    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Beans
    319
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Re: Hardware talk - CPU architecture

    ...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.


    http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophom...nts/index.html

    seems differences have blurred over time.....
    AMD Sempron 2400+/512Mb DDR400/ATI Radeon X1300 -->Ubuntu 8.04
    AMD K6-2 350/ 512Mb PC133/ATI Rage --> Ubuntu minimal+LXDE

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •