PPC speed differences

by T¹ » Mar 6, 2002 @ 7:07pm

Has anyone done any research into relative speeds of PPCs cpus, specifically Mips compared to Arm? The reason i ask is because i'm working on something for ARM cpus which is quite cpu-hungry and am still contemplating the feasability of a Mips version. I'd hate to spend a lot of time on specific optimisations & tweaks for a Mips build, only to find out it can't run at a decent speed.

Any thoughts are appreciated, especially if someone has done any kind of benchmark testing.

by **accolon** » Mar 6, 2002 @ 7:28pm

Perhaps these benchmarks are useful:
http://www.itcp.net/~awsh/Reviews/Casio ... 125_06.htm

Adrian did a review about the E-125 and compared it to the iPAQ (should be transferable to every ARM device) as well as the E-115 and some HP devices.

BTW: It's quite impressive what you can get out of the MIPS CPU with overclocking, I'm wondering why there aren't any faster MIPS CPUs available...

But who cares?

*awaits the XScale devices*

by **johannpublic** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 6:50am

by **RICoder** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 7:52am

by **TechMage** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 11:56am

Nobody ever talks about SH3 processors anymore. :cry:

They used to be amazing, remember the HP Jornada 420 and 430se Palm-Sized PC? The 420 had a 100MHz procesor and the 430se had a 133MHz processor! Making them the fastest Palm-Sized PCs ever.

Then when the Pocket PC came out, Everybody went to MIPS and ARM. Except the dumb-ass company, HP, who put the 430se PsPC's processor in the 52x, and 54x PPCs!

If only the Jornada Pocket PCs would of had a SH3 processor up in the 180-230 range, SH3 could have lived on.

And what ever happened to making a PPC with a 300Mhz SH4 processor in it? They could have made a 300Mhz PPC way back in the days of PPC 2000 if they would have used a SH4 processor. The people who create PPCs must be really slow in the head. I guess most of them are old farts who rotted there brains way back in the 70s with those old monitors that gave off tons of radiation. :lol:

Oh well, I guess the ARM architecture is the wave of the future, *sigh*...

by **accolon** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 2:13pm

by **James S** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 2:33pm

by **R0B** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 4:41pm

by **David Horn** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 6:19pm

by **James S** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 7:20pm

Both R0B and DavidHorn, very true. Good points.

by **RICoder** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 9:59pm

Mac chips outrun Intel chips eh? You are a dumbass. Show me the spec.

Mac had to pull that shit off the internet because it was a bold-faced lie. The only thing it did faster was stright integer math, and that was not twice as fast.

As for AMD, they used to make Intel chips for them, but then they went off on their own. They are not superior in any way to Intel's x86 architecture. This is a falicy. What is worse is that they run hotter and less efficiently. And, just for an added bonus they are notoriously incompatible with standard Win32 applications.

meh....i sound like paul...

by **Chris Edwards** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 10:27pm

The old Athlon-C series meet your specs of "run hotter and less efficiently", but the Athlon XP chips are awesome! Just take a look at ANY comparison of a similarily clocked P4, you'll see what I mean... And compatibility is almost a non-issue with the Athlon XP's

by **suchiaruzu** » Mar 10, 2002 @ 10:32pm

"They benchmarked the devices with GAPI Benchmark (it's their own software)"

"GAPI BENCHMARK 2.0 By Javier Dávalos (aka CARPEDIEM)"

Alright, who shall I believe? :-D

by **RICoder** » Mar 11, 2002 @ 3:25am

"Almost" a non-issue...

by **accolon** » Mar 11, 2002 @ 1:14pm

PPC speed differences

PPC speed differences

Sort

Forum Description

Moderators:

Forum permissions