xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2009 Well, here at Xisto, it's a no-brainer that most of us are in the know-how of electronic equipment or just professional in the electronics, computers or design field (for all you artists out there).However, one debate is surprisingly never debated in these forums... Now we can!Cast your vote who you think is better and what you use. Also, remember to post to back your reasons!I vote POWER/PowerPC because they have been traditionally the processor architecture for high performance chips like BlueGene/L and is the basis for the Cell processor. However, since there are no longer any PowerPC processors in the desktop market (screw you Apple for going Intel). Most machines in my house uses AMD because they are the ones who can balance performance, price and low heat output. We are in the process of phasing out Intel because they don't meet our price/performance/heat ratio.xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quatrux 4 Report post Posted January 8, 2009 I agree that most of the desktops now are x86, but for a lot of people when the speeds of cpus are like that, noone really cares to much.. even though x86 offers really bad assembler construction, everyone is using it, as I know on some portable devices and different other devices, Z80 is still being used as it's cheap, much better while writing assembly and so on, even though it's I think over 20-30 years old.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z80PPC are great, G4.. G5 had some bad aspects, even though PPC is much better than x86, it's just that it's not used like x86 and I guess it's what it makes hard for most developers and production.. But there are computers/boards which still were developed and used for different purposes after Apple moved to x86, even though they aren't so popular, but usually small, can run Linux PPC and other stuff.. But as I know PPC are off with desktop market, so for Operating systems which still is using PPC it's hard times, due to it's hard to find components for new boards, northbridges and so on.. Also lets don't forget the dying market of Amiga OS, OS4 and MorphOS which are using newly developed (but what I've read having bugs, I guess because of low budget) PPC boards to run the OS as it's only PPC, where classic Amiga boards are using m68k (Motorolla 68k) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68k which also had really well developed assembly instructions..I myself have a PPC Board called Efika from Freescale, which can run MorphOS, Linux PPC, but I don't really have much time to play with it now.. It's so quiet, because it doesn't need a cooler, but todays better laptops are also really quiet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efika PPC processors are good, but the logic they used marketing it was stupid, as usually good things vanishes leaving the bad? I guess everyone who still is using PPC should find a path and move to x86 if they want to survive, I mean developers, opearating systems which are in the desktop market :| Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2009 I would want an EFIKA if the system was faster, 400 MHz can't even deal with most tasks now-a-days as technology zooms madly. I don't think anyone would bother any processor under 1 GHz.xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quatrux 4 Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Yeah, it depends what you want to do with it, it was some time ago, several years even.. can't remember.. but it's definitely over 3-4 years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted January 8, 2009 I also vote for PPC for professional use, for all servers like database servers or web servers.Small blade PPC AIX systems for small applications, rack-mounted high-end AIX servers.Remember that AIX PPC systems are the only computers having up to 64 processors on the same motherboard, accessing the same disks and memory. For Oracle databases this is priceless, sharing data between processes is a memory-to-memory interchange. These system are the biggest in the world today, and they use exactly the same operating system as the small desktops the developers use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wutske 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2009 Every architecture has it's postive and negative sides, it depends on where you want to use them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2009 So far we have unianimously agree PowerPC is better lol.xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atomic0 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2009 I prefer the x86 architecture since all the CPUs I have bought have run on the x86 architecture. However, there isn't really a 'best' processor architecture as different processor architecture are used on different platforms that have different overall uses (e.g. specialised server CPUs on blade servers, supercomputer processing).I am currently using a computer fitted with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 CPU. There wasn't really a choice for processor architecture, since most desktop motherboards are only designed for x86 processors, though I did prefer an Intel CPU over an AMD CPU. I generally tended to avoid buying an AMD processor or an ATI graphics card, since I preferred a mainstream and better supported brands of Intel and Nvidia.I suppose PowerPC processor were quite popular because Apple notebooks and desktops were using processors that ran on the PowerPC architecture. However, since Apple switched to the x86 processor architecture with Intel CPUs as the only option, there has been a large decline in the proportion of PowerPC users. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
truefusion 3 Report post Posted February 6, 2009 I stick with AMD: cheap, good and fast. Hard to find those three qualities with Intel, unless you perhaps wait out the prices. I also like the triple core idea, since i find anything greater than three cores a bit exaggerated, at least for desktop—especially for laptop—computers. Unless i'm mistaken, i believe AMD was the first to come out with 64-bit processing, where Intel took from AMD to achieve 64 bit processing. But i heard Intel is working on a processor that'll be really cheap and really fast, but that was through word of mouth and i haven't done any research on it myself. If it's true and it comes out, i'll probably switch to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockershive 0 Report post Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) Take a look at my PC. I carefully choose before I buy. Most hardware are expensive but not worth performing. Share yours too. Currently this machine is Hex-booting (6 OS's installed in 1 80Gb HD). I love AMD. We love AMD. Â Â Visit My Specs Edited February 7, 2009 by rockershive (see edit history) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rnd-am 0 Report post Posted February 7, 2009 Well, I use x86_64=amd64 on both personal workstation (laptop) and servers I use, and I think there's no alas real alternative. May be only celerons  variants for price.AMD CPU's performanceis too poor, and they are yet pretty hot what concerns working temperature and hence, stability in workFuture and eprspective CPU's I think are, those which will be multicore/ or support massive paralellismmaybe Cell? anyway _now best CPUs are x86_64 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grim reaper1666 0 Report post Posted December 15, 2010 well i prefer AMD processors because they may heat up more than a intel processor but you can get high speed cores at a cheaper price then intel. at my local computer store you can get a AMD hex core for £153 which is clocked at 2.8ghz per core. to me that seems alot better then forking out over £300 on intel processor. AMD understands that if you offer a good processor at a cheaper price then people are going to be more likely of buying it since they want a good processor but they don't want to give intel money which they would much rather use to buy a good graphics card along with the cpu. although in any computer cooling is crucial cpu cores run better at lower temperatures and at those lower tempertures is what you need for overclocking without it you are saying good bye computer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manuleka 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) in time ARM mobile architecture will dominate the CPU market as Mobile devices increase in share-market... now a days mobile devices outsells PCs...pcmag.comits interesting that mobile CPUs are increasingly faster and faster, it's a matter of time before they catchup with PC top CPU speeds Edited January 25, 2012 by manuleka (see edit history) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted January 25, 2012 its interesting that mobile CPUs are increasingly faster and faster, it's a matter of time before they catchup with PC top CPU speedsYou are partly right.However, you will hardly find inside a mobile device as much room for cpu's, memory, hard drives, cooling power, as well as a comfortable keyboard and a 22-inch screen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manuleka 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) You are partly right.However, you will hardly find inside a mobile device as much room for cpu's, memory, hard drives, cooling power, as well as a comfortable keyboard and a 22-inch screen. hehe quite true... but look at the powers of todays mobile phones:my iPhone 4 runs on a 1GHz CPU with 512MB RAM, the 4S packs 2 core 1GHz with a 1GB RAM and the upcoming new Samsung Galaxy S III is to run on 2GB RAM with a 1.5GHz+ "Quadcore" CPU....compare those to my current PC which runs on a 3GHz P4 and 2GB of Ram... Edited January 25, 2012 by manuleka (see edit history) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
