PPC vs x86 performance comparison

[filson]

I just read this (old news) from distributed.net.
Myself being bogged down by the MHz race, I thought it would be nice to see a computational comparison of the PPC/x86 processors to sort of iron out some of the doubts about the "slow" PPC's in the Pegasos and A1 boards.
Here's the snippet:

 we completed 86,950,894 workunits on our best day. This is 0.12% of the total keyspace meaning that at our peak rate we could expect to exhaust the keyspace in 790 days. Our peak rate of 270,147,024 kkeys/sec is equivalent to 32,504 800MHz Apple PowerBook G4 laptops or 45,998 2GHz AMD Athlon XP machines or (to use some rc5-56 numbers) nearly a half million Pentium Pro 200s.



so there is more to it after all. :-D  :-D

[bhoggett]

There's nothing worse than using the wrong programs to reach  "benchmark" comparisons, and the stuff at distrubuted.net is the worst you could use.

[KennyR]

PPCs are very good at this kind of cache based processing, x86 are very poor. Unfortunately, while I'd love PPC to beat the execrable x86 in speed, it just doesn't. Per MHz it does, obviously...but when was the last time 800MHz was a top end PC? :-(

[Quixote]

;-) Because different architectures are superior to each other in different tasks, I think a better approach is to ask yourself: "Which computer is better at what I want to use it for, and ignore the rest.

[ikir]

PPC rocks!
x86 sucks!

 :roflmao:

[filson]

being that i've been away for a while, i haven't been able to respond to your rants  :-D

One can not even compare the Pentium to an Athlon processor so what are you wining about??

I just brought this up to cheer up some moody faces, as in showing that even though the PPC's are "old" by todays standards, its not totaly useless.

And besides, most code are coded around the platform with its architecture in mind. data alignment, cache-miss prevention, instruction pipelining and so on.
No one code is the same on diferent machines, not ANSI C/C++, not Java, no nothing.

so cheer up! we can make this work if we realy want to.  :-)

[Nightcrawler]

The part that I like about PPC is that i doesn't get as hot as an x86 type cpu... I have a 600Mhz PIII machine at home now and it isn't very fast but it's really nice to put your feet on for a while.

How about the power consumption? x86 has to use more power, so PPC would be more economical?

[bhoggett]

@Nightcrawler

The part that I like about PPC is that i doesn't get as hot as an x86 type cpu... I have a 600Mhz PIII machine at home now and it isn't very fast but it's really nice to put your feet on for a while.

Whilst it's true that the full blown x86 CPUs run hotter than the PPC, you need to remember that the CPU is only part of the heat generated in a computer box. Modern graphics cards and hard drives give off a helluva lot of heat too, and they will do so whether the CPU is an x86 or a PPC regardless.

How about the power consumption? x86 has to use more power, so PPC would be more economical?

The economy angle is meaningless unless you plan to run thousands of systems. Where the power consumption comes in is in heat generation and motherboard reliability.

Less power == less heat and less strain on the motherboard.

As with system heat, there are other factors to consider in determining motherboard reliability besides the power it has to carry.

[mikeymike]

Can I ask how many people saw the name of this thread and thought "oh no, not this old chestnut again"? :-)

[filson]

funny, i thought just the same when i saw you :-D  :-D

[mikeymike]

MeOW!

bihatch! :-)

[filson]

my, oh my! i've made a monkey friend.  :-D
wanna continue in the DMZ? ;-)

[jeffimix]

Companies other than Intel and AMd make X86 processors. I might add that you can get a 1Ghz X86 computer that runs at 10 watts, just like the 10 watts a 1.3 Ghz underclocked to 1 Ghz Motorola PPC will run at. I wishi I remembered the link, but I swear this is true, it was some article in a PC site about alternative processors to be cheaper.

Also, PPC to X86 is similiar to the CISC->RISC arguments, depending on what you want to do, you can make either just scream with speed.

[mikeymike]

Companies other than Intel and AMd make X86 processors. I might add that you can get a 1Ghz X86 computer that runs at 10 watts

I bet they can't hold a candle to AMD/Intel chip performance though... I mean, come on, a friend of mine has a Cyrix 700MHz processor, and it can't even outrun the absolutely ancient P166MMX [o/c'd to 200MHz] based system my parents used to have at Quake 2!

[iamaboringperson]

if only ibm&motorola would get their ass into gear and start increasing the external bus speed a little
and take advantage of DDR

PowerPC has always beaten the x86 when the external clock speed was roughly the same, now they have lost the plot
i suppose they are still good for some tasks but probably not so good for graphics intensive tasks and games

its a shame

but wait for the 970! i would like to see the performance of that compared to a pent. IV
 :-)