IBM talks about the PowerPC 970.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Heh.

if you haven't had problems with BIOS', then why are you bitching about them?

Because I like the control and usefulness of Firmware.
[/quote]

what control and usefulness do you have with a firmware over a bios? in general, with Apples at least, i find a well configured BIOS to be more useful. of course, i may have different uses than you.

Im not saying an x86 based solution is not a good one for some purposes, but frankly if I were given a box to keep and use on a daily basis for me, I would prefer something better than a couple of Xeons thrown into a boring old case and given second rate hardware. Solutions from IBM or Sun can do wonders that most gamers never understand. And generally they are not bought for fast benchmarks...

well, i doubt that any of the business owners i know who were buying servers were buying them for games. why do you automatically assume that the Xeon system has inferior hardware and boring "old" cases? that kinda undermines your argument. both IBM and SUN use the lowest quality cheapest hardware that they can get away with, same with Apple. same with PC manufacturers. i've worked on IBM servers and Sun workstations in the past, and i'm generally not terribly impressed with component quality level. i'm also generally not impressed with the build quality on Apples and PC's, though Apples are fairly decent given that they control the entire product line. you'd be surprised by how many off the shelf taiwan no name parts get stuffed into IBM and Sun machines.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

 

[Dug]

Unfrotunately x86 still lags behind other architectures in the high end arena, someplace the PPC does quite well in.

Please show...

 

[Sunner]

I don't care much for the basic assembly of most Sun boxes, I definately prefer Compaq in that department.

But the long term quality of SPARC hardware is unmatched in the x86 world.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

Don't forget to add drive letters to that. It's honestly amazing that we still use them.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Dug

Unfrotunately x86 still lags behind other architectures in the high end arena, someplace the PPC does quite well in.

Please show...

IBM POWER4. in x86 I still have motherboards, created not too long ago, that have ISA slots. I still have to look at a BIOS. Most motherboards do not have great serial console support.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: kgraeme

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

Don't forget to add drive letters to that. It's honestly amazing that we still use them.

well that's an os problem, not really an architecture problem. i have all x86 machines and dont use drive letters at all.

but i do agree - drive letters are retarded.

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Dug

Unfrotunately x86 still lags behind other architectures in the high end arena, someplace the PPC does quite well in.

Please show...

IBM POWER4. in x86 I still have motherboards, created not too long ago, that have ISA slots. I still have to look at a BIOS. Most motherboards do not have great serial console support.

I thought you meant it lags in performance, in which case I wanted to see where it lags.
And what high end arena are you talking about anyway?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Dug

Unfrotunately x86 still lags behind other architectures in the high end arena, someplace the PPC does quite well in.

Please show...

IBM POWER4. in x86 I still have motherboards, created not too long ago, that have ISA slots. I still have to look at a BIOS. Most motherboards do not have great serial console support.

I thought you meant it lags in performance, in which case I wanted to see where it lags.

In most areas x86 chips are the top performers. I have no problems admitting that.

And what high end arena are you talking about anyway?

In most of the high end situations you have to look at the entire architecture and not just the chips themselves.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

pc platform is pretty poorly designed due to the limited resources available back in... 1982... work around have been developed and theres a ton of inertia behind what is an antiquated platform... unfortunately it won't change until x86 is dead.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

pc platform is pretty poorly designed due to the limited resources available back in... 1982... work around have been developed and theres a ton of inertia behind what is an antiquated platform... unfortunately it won't change until x86 is dead.

x86-64 has the oppurtunity to fix some of it, but none of the companies involved have the balls. It would mean some definitely changes that users, software developers, and hardware developers would have to accept.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

pc platform is pretty poorly designed due to the limited resources available back in... 1982... work around have been developed and theres a ton of inertia behind what is an antiquated platform... unfortunately it won't change until x86 is dead.

x86-64 has the oppurtunity to fix some of it, but none of the companies involved have the balls. It would mean some definitely changes that users, software developers, and hardware developers would have to accept.

which is why apple is the only personal computer company to completely change their platform in the last 2 decades

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
assembly on an x86 sucks. irq's suck. pci/resource conflicts suck. the booting situation sucks. 4 primary partitions sucks. non-hot-pluggable peripheral ports suck.

does this make any sense? does anyone care about anything but big numbers and running antivirus software at 3 billihertz?

pc platform is pretty poorly designed due to the limited resources available back in... 1982... work around have been developed and theres a ton of inertia behind what is an antiquated platform... unfortunately it won't change until x86 is dead.

x86-64 has the oppurtunity to fix some of it, but none of the companies involved have the balls. It would mean some definitely changes that users, software developers, and hardware developers would have to accept.

which is why apple is the only personal computer company to completely change their platform in the last 2 decades

Big balls... That and Jobs is nuts.

EDIT: And they changed it twice

 

[tart666]

What's all the hoopla all about? Here's a quote from the article:

production expected in the second half of 2003

There is no information that didn't come out two months ago in this.

 

[tart666]

Performance is fine, clockspeed means nothing to me I only care about the work I can get done with the chip, and price is not important when considering the technical merits of a processor. What is important though, is the overall architecture. Unfrotunately x86 still lags behind other architectures in the high end arena, someplace the PPC does quite well in.

Unless you actually do use one of those video editing/ image / sound apps, which run twice as fast on an intel

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: tart666

Performance is fine, clockspeed means nothing to me I only care about the work I can get done with the chip, and price is not important when considering the technical merits of a processor. What is important though, is the overall architecture. Unfrotunately x86 still lags behind other architectures in the high end arena, someplace the PPC does quite well in.

Unless you actually do use one of those video editing/ image / sound apps, which run twice as fast on an intel

Then, by all means, get an Intel chip. If your application runs slower on the x86 arch, but you prefer it and want to buy it, dont let my (or anyone else's) comments stop you.

 

[BFG10K]

not that its going to topple intel or anything...

At those prices the only thing it can topple is the black market.

Will not ever happen. PPC is a much better processor design.

The PPC delivers half the performance at three times the price of high-end x86 CPUs. I fail to see how that makes it "better". You can spout off about elegance but that doesn't mean anything in reality to the user.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I agree with BFG. This is just like the Intel/AMD arguments. Sure the Intel uses its pure Mhz advantage to gain the edge in speed, but AMD's processors are better designed and have a stronger FPU and can keep up with intel at lower clockspeeds.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I agree with BFG. This is just like the Intel/AMD arguments. Sure the Intel uses its pure Mhz advantage to gain the edge in speed, but AMD's processors are better designed and have a stronger FPU and can keep up with intel at lower clockspeeds.

of course you realize that what you just said is an absolutely idiotic statement. the Pentium IV was designed to require high clockspeeds to equal or surpass the Athlon. it was always the design intention for the processor to have a much higher clockspeed ceiling than the athlon and leave the Athlon in the dust as the Pentium IV ramped to higher and higher clockspeeds. which is exactly what it has done. how is that less well designed than a processor which has lesser performance? doesn't it look, instead, like the Pentium IV is doing exactly what it was designed for, and thus is well designed since it is, in fact, the fastest? save your fanboy platitudes for the hardforum.