Smartseo Blog
great technology news
Looking for something?
Use the form below to search the site:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
Archives
All entries, chronologically...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
January 27th, 2012 on 7:27 pm
I guess I’ll be going with intel as it’s faster and because the newer OS(s) are only compatible with intel.
also because if I’m getting a newer laptop to run my newer software I’m kinda being forced to use intel because I don’t think newer laptops come with powerPC chips.
January 27th, 2012 on 7:52 pm
i hate intel
January 27th, 2012 on 8:51 pm
@yixxt, according to parties such as IBM. But look at IBM, they’re overclocking CPU ‘old-timer’ equivalents at gigantic clock frequencies and vast amounts of cache memories. And still, they can barely beat IA-64 with the latest POWER7. IBM proudly boasted, in a press release (when POWER7 was just released), how they could outperform much older IA-64 stuff. They were so proud. (I wasn’t sure whether I had to laugh or cry.)
January 27th, 2012 on 9:36 pm
@eMGeeGFX IA-64 is dying a slow death, it was a solution to a problem that does not exist.
January 27th, 2012 on 10:09 pm
@eMGeeGFX well in terms of instructions from complex of which CISC uses it requires the assembly to be ready for instructions coming down rather than the CISC decode process.
January 27th, 2012 on 10:47 pm
By the way, RISC doesn’t require more code, it actually requires less. But, that really depends per situation and context.
January 27th, 2012 on 11:32 pm
Apple should’ve switched to IA-64 instead of the dog-slow PPC (POWER is only fast because they run at such ridiculously high frequencies) and commodity x86/-64, with all of its shortcomings. (I believe Apple actually did consider it, so I was told.) IA-64 is truly interesting, with a potentially good future ahead. Totally different from both CISC and RISC, in my opinion the way to go.
January 28th, 2012 on 12:12 am
That makes no sence, a company or an architecture? You mean X86 vs PPC, hehe.
January 28th, 2012 on 12:24 am
check out my latest series on setting osx free as well.
January 28th, 2012 on 1:17 am
wow, this was an old video, but i would have to disagree about the two being the same, CiSC uses decoders and thus must increase the cycle rate for the gap, it then converts it into fast RISC, but they are not the same and do not perform the same. I have a few vids on multiprocessing but have a look at my behind the bit vid.
January 28th, 2012 on 1:28 am
Most x86 chips now use a form of RISC combined with the CISC instructions, so by the sounds of it, they’ve met both problems but are still hit with the same technical problem which was also worked around with the use of multiple processor cores, this pretty much if i’m right allows cores to take a part of the problem each and execute them how you’d described in your video
January 28th, 2012 on 1:55 am
i love my g5 dual core 2.3ghz
January 28th, 2012 on 2:26 am
i know u posted this 11 months ago but just so u know apple did make a gaming Console before the “apple pipin” ran on a Motorola PPC Chip it was a failure but they did make one
January 28th, 2012 on 3:20 am
EPIC however uses Parallel instruction it still uses long instruction sets but breaks it down to be processed (non-serial) fashion. It has not proven that well as ultra-SPARC and IBM have still dominated in performance. The main issue with execution of complex instruction is that it must be decoded as all chips base execution is fast RISC or fRISK like as in made alternative.
January 28th, 2012 on 3:55 am
All things equal back then against the P4′s of intel, i believe and would have to check that 867 would equal 1.2 – 1.4 GHZ P4. At the same time though Intel had the itanium which produced the same effect as PPC vs Intel CISC as Itanium is EPIC based thus EPIC vs CISC. Where EPIC and RISC use less cycles on the CPU per instruction set.
January 28th, 2012 on 4:49 am
Okay, so if powerpc is faster, how would an 867mhz PPC G4 compare if it was an intel processor? (how fast would the mark it at?)
January 28th, 2012 on 5:08 am
yes intel is behind a lot of the innovation in the new macs. great points
January 28th, 2012 on 5:35 am
even tho i do have an intel mac as my main machine i do believe that power pc could of been big if apple worked harder with IBM apple has a beautiful relationship intel and without this the macbook air wouldn’t of been possible without help from intel
January 28th, 2012 on 6:08 am
Great, very informative. Thanks
January 28th, 2012 on 6:58 am
sorry about the double post.
January 28th, 2012 on 7:25 am
Well, I have seen some PC’s that try to be an imac.
XPS ONE
h t t p: //w w w. dell. c o m/content/products/productdetails. a s
p x/xpsdt_one? c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~tab=bundlestab&redirect=1
Gateway One ZX190:
h t t p: //w w w. gateway. c o m/systems/product/529667523. p h
p
(Note: close the spaces)
January 28th, 2012 on 7:41 am
“True…an iMac is a beautiful machine….and I have yet to see anything like it on the PC side…”
Yeah. Tell me about it.
Well, I have seen some PC’s that try to be an imac.
XPS ONE
h t t p: //w w w. dell. c o m/content/products/productdetails. a s p x/xpsdt_one?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~tab=bundlestab&redirect=1
Gateway One ZX190:
h t t p: //w w w. gateway. c o m/systems/product/529667523. p h p
(Note: close the spaces)
January 28th, 2012 on 7:50 am
my pc is more expensive.
January 28th, 2012 on 8:14 am
“Part of that is it’s compact design, which uses mobility components. ”
True…an iMac is a beautiful machine….and I have yet to see anything like it on the PC side…however, the touch screen HP is very nice.
I guess, the advatge of going PC, for me, is you can build a PC for less than a Mac.