By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Wii U vs PS4 vs Xbox One FULL SPECS (January 24, 2014)

ethomaz on 13 December 2012
superchunk said:
I admit I could be wrong, but I have always heard that Power CPUs are pound for pound better CPUs. i.e. if you have a 3GHZ dual core in IBM and 3GHZ dual core in x86, the IBM will out perform it every time. This was especially true and pointed out repeatedly in the days when Apple used IBM as their CPU provider.

Apple changed to Intel because the PowerPC was dated and too slow.

The PowerPC was more powerful when Pentium 4 was the best CPU made by Intel... after that the Intel e AMD CPU's evolved and the PowerPC is the same CPU created ten years ago.

That's why the PowerPC is not even close the x86 today.



Around the Network
JEMC on 13 December 2012

Ok. Thanks again ethomaz.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

darkknightkryta on 13 December 2012
ethomaz said:
superchunk said:
I admit I could be wrong, but I have always heard that Power CPUs are pound for pound better CPUs. i.e. if you have a 3GHZ dual core in IBM and 3GHZ dual core in x86, the IBM will out perform it every time. This was especially true and pointed out repeatedly in the days when Apple used IBM as their CPU provider.

Apple changed to Intel because the PowerPC was dated and too slow.

The PowerPC was more powerful when Pentium 4 was the best CPU made by Intel... after that the Intel e AMD CPU's evolved and the PowerPC is the same CPU created ten years ago.

That's why the PowerPC is not even close the x86 today.

On the contrary, the Power line of processors are way ahead of the x86 machines.  Apple switched because IBM had no roadmap to shrink the processors and get thermals down, so when it came to the macbooks, Power processors made no sense.



ethomaz on 13 December 2012

darkknightkryta said:

On the contrary, the Power line of processors are way ahead of the x86 machines.  Apple switched because IBM had no roadmap to shrink the processors and get thermals down, so when it came to the macbooks, Power processors made no sense.

No.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1054048/bench.html

Intel Core 2 (the dated Intel CPU) win in almost every bench over PowerPC in Apple computes.

"At the risk of repeating some of our earlier comments, the Core 2 Duo-based MacBook Pros outperform the top consumer and pro PowerPC laptops—quite dramatically in the case of the 2.33GHz model."

The PowerPC was too weak for the future of the Apple... the Intel CPU's is today the most advanced CPU in the market (three generations ahed the old Core 2).

The only problem with Intel CPUs is the price... so Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses IBM PowerPCs or AMD CPUs because they are cheap.

I just wanted to see a console with a Core i7 22 nm + GTX 680 28nm... GAMER DREAM!!!



darkknightkryta on 13 December 2012
ethomaz said:

darkknightkryta said:

On the contrary, the Power line of processors are way ahead of the x86 machines.  Apple switched because IBM had no roadmap to shrink the processors and get thermals down, so when it came to the macbooks, Power processors made no sense.

No.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1054048/bench.html

Intel Core 2 (the dated Intel CPU) win in almost every bench over PowerPC in Apple computes.

"At the risk of repeating some of our earlier comments, the Core 2 Duo-based MacBook Pros outperform the top consumer and pro PowerPC laptops—quite dramatically in the case of the 2.33GHz model."

The PowerPC was too weak for the future of the Apple... the Intel CPU's is today the most advanced CPU in the market (three generations ahed the old Core 2).

The only problem with Intel CPUs is the price... so Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses IBM PowerPCs or AMD CPUs because they are cheap.

I just wanted to see a console with a Core i7 22 nm + GTX 680 28nm... GAMER DREAM!!!

I think you should look up more articles about the switch.  Intel CPUs are not better than the Power line, they're quite worse.  IBM just doesn't have any CPU that's good for laptops and they never will.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 13 December 2012

darkknightkryta said:

I think you should look up more articles about the switch.  Intel CPUs are not better than the Power line, they're quite worse.  IBM just doesn't have any CPU that's good for laptops and they never will.

Show me some links... I will love to read.



darkknightkryta on 13 December 2012
ethomaz said:

darkknightkryta said:

I think you should look up more articles about the switch.  Intel CPUs are not better than the Power line, they're quite worse.  IBM just doesn't have any CPU that's good for laptops and they never will.

Show me some links... I will love to read.

This is the one I was looking at a few years back I believe: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10264290-64.html



ethomaz on 13 December 2012

darkknightkryta said:

This is the one I was looking at a few years back I believe: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10264290-64.html

This link not say anything abou the performance ot the two.

I can say for sure there is no IBM POWERPC better than Intel Core i7 in performance.

Remember we are talking about general use (console) not a dedicated server app.



darkknightkryta on 13 December 2012
ethomaz said:

darkknightkryta said:

This is the one I was looking at a few years back I believe: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10264290-64.html

This link not say anything abou the performance ot the two.

I can say for sure there is no IBM POWERPC better than Intel Core i7 in performance.

There isn't cause they're discontinued, I said Power, their current chips.  And yes they are.  Like, you're trying to say that a PC processor (high end of course) will be a better performer than a high end server processor.  It doesn't work like that, hell Intel doesn't even use the i7s for servers, they use their Xeon processors.  And the probable reason for Apple leaving IBM was mainly due to cost (Cause server processors are more pricey than PC processors) and IBM wasn't going to make a laptop variant of the PowerPC.



zarx on 13 December 2012

You people do realise that IBM make CPUs based on 10 different architectures that span 2 different instruction sets. All of which vary wildly in terms of performance...

And AMD have at lest 3 different architectures as well, all that while all based on x86 vary wildly in terms of performance. 

The comparison is flawed from the beginning and everyone who answers ether way is wrong. Because there are so many variables. 

 

But here are some benchmarke for you guys to look at

GMP repo [2012-03-22] GMPbench 0.2 results

CPU
freq
MHz
A
B
I		Compiler/Compilation flags
base
multiply dividegcdgcdext
app
rsa      pi
GMP
bench		Score/
GHz		Possib.
Score/
GHz
Opteron/Athlon64 K10 6MB L3 3200 64 "gcc 4.2.1" -O2 -m64 -mtune=k8 45414 42779 7679 5119 6216 45.6 3500 1094 1300
Core i5 2500 (Sandy Bridge) 3300 64 "gcc 4.6.2" -O2 -m64 -march=corei7 41412 41741 7628 5292 5213 41.8 3222 976  
POWER7 3550 64 "gcc 4.6.1" -O3 -mtune=power7 31225 30122 5080 3657 3741 34.8 2398 675  
AMD FX (Bulldozer) 3600 64 "gcc 4.2.1" -O2 -m64 29983 30588 5379 3559 3943 31.9 2373 659  
Core i7 920 (Nehalem) 2667 64 "gcc 4.2.1" -O2 -m64 26436 25056 4439 2873 3330 27.4 2006 752 900
AMD Bobcat 1600 64 "gcc 4.2.1" -O2 12193 11470 2533 1595 1709 12.5 979 612  
POWER6 3500 64 "xlc" -O2 -qarch=pwr6 10561 11401 2110 1292 1133 13.0 841 240  
Arm Cortex-A15 1700 32 "gcc 4.6.3" -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer 7352 7453 1467 980 936 8.78 605 356  
Athlon32 1826 32 "gcc 4.2.1" -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer 5280 6150 1299 866 577 7.19 458 251  
Intel Atom 330 1600 64 "gcc 4.4.1" -O2 -m64 4592 5223 986 589 500 5.66 374 234  
Arm Cortex-A9 1000 32 "gcc 4.4.5" -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer 3715 3575 773 514 495 3.38 288 288  
z990 1200 64 "gcc 4.4.5" -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer 3037 3838 747 438 317 4.01 259 216  
Alpha 21164 600 64 "gcc 3.4.6" -O2 1415 1789 383 217 167 1.85 126 210  

One showing SPARC CPUs crushing all in the server space (because IBM only make specialist embedded CPUs outside of servers these days that is the only data you will find)

TPC-H @3000GB, Non-Clustered Systems
System 
Processor 
P/C/T – Memory		Composite
(QphH)		$/perf
($/QphH)		Power
(QppH)		Throughput
(QthH)		DatabaseAvailable
SPARC Enterprise M9000
3.0 GHz SPARC64 VII+
64/256/256 – 1024 GB		 386,478.3 $18.19 316,835.8 471,428.6 Oracle 11g R2 09/22/11
SPARC T4-4
3.0 GHz SPARC T4
4/32/256 – 1024 GB		 205,792.0 $4.10 190,325.1 222,515.9 Oracle 11g R2 05/31/12
SPARC Enterprise M9000
2.88 GHz SPARC64 VII 
32/128/256 – 512 GB		 198,907.5 $15.27 182,350.7 216,967.7 Oracle 11g R2 12/09/10
IBM Power 780
4.1 GHz POWER7 
8/32/128 – 1024 GB		 192,001.1 $6.37 210,368.4 175,237.4 Sybase 15.4 11/30/11
HP ProLiant DL980 G7
2.27 GHz Intel Xeon X7560 
8/64/128 – 512 GB		 162,601.7 $2.68 185,297.7 142,685.6 SQL Server 2008 10/13/10


@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!