Re: Shit - it's all true
Re: Shit - it's all true
- Subject: Re: Shit - it's all true
- From: Andrew Oliver <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:14:53 -0700
On 6/6/05 6:46 PM, "Allen Rongone" <email@hidden> wrote:
> What I can't understand is why anyone would want to leave the RISC
> architecture and switch to the slower CISC?!?! Doesn't sound like a
> smart move IMHO.
Please show where RISC and CISC are significantly different in terms of
speed. Please also show, where possible, where RISC architecture in modern
CPUs outperforms CISC. In both cases I consider differences of more than 10%
as significant.
The reality is that Intel has been able to push the CISC/x86 architecture
further than almost anyone thought possible 10 years ago when RISC vs CISC
was a big issue with the first PowerPCs.
Nowadays, top of the line processors from IBM (PowerPC G5/variants), Intel
(Pentium 4) and AMD (Athlon/Opteron) are remarkably close in terms of raw
performance, with each of them being at the top of the table in some
benchmarks and bottom of the table in others.
The one missing item from this switch is 64-bit. Intel don't have a viable
64-bit architecture (and the demo systems at WWDC have regular
Pentium4/3.6GHz processors) and I can't see that changing before Intel-based
Macs start shipping, so what happens to the work that developers have put
into place in order to reach 64-bit?
Andrew
:)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden