Re: TI-H: risc

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TI-H: risc


Well obviously I basically meant the MMX commands, not coding a game in
asm... My main point is that you SERIOUSLY cannot compare the processors.
RISC has a LOT of good and decent features. Although my point was just a
comparison to CISC, which really cannot be done, unless you find a SPECIFIC
application that is necessary to run under PPC and x86, such as my example
with the game. I'm sure you could find identical commands with a RISC chip,
since I'm sure IBM and Motorola have tried to make their chips as close to
Intel's cisc chips as possible to help Apple and whoever else to create
compatible software.  Really, I'd like to terminate this discussion, since
we've all made good points, and the main idea is that you really cannot just
say "CISC is better than RISC" or vice versa... Although with today's
computers, you could probably make some serious analisys and find out which
one is the most efficient with the current applications (but the score would
come close and each would have its ups and downs). For tiny small projects,
I'd favour RISC. For servers, I'd probably favour RISC. For something
else... I'd favour CISC. Whatever... Let us try to talk about TI! They use
RISC and CISC processors for their calcs!

> 
> >That isn't a very good example Grant.  That is just one of the many
commands
> >that RISC and CISC have.  If I wanted a RISC processor to accomplish one
of
> >the CISC 59 new "MMX" commands, then it would take the RISC processor
more
> >clocks to get it accomplished.  To set a greater example, if I wanted to
> >make a game based on MMX commands, then I wanted to port it to an IBM
RISC,
> >the game would ultimately be slower, unless I knew the IBM RISC commands
(if
> >any) that were similar to the MMX commands.  Even pipelining wouldn't
help
> >the RISC accomplish it, since CISC can play that game to. On the
contrary,
> >if I wanted to program something in RISC, then it may be easily
applicable
> >to CISC, although CISC would probably be slower, for obvious reasons.
Like
> >I said the first time: It ALL depends upon the application.
> 
> No one writes games in ASM for windows computers.  Writing programs in
ASM,
> even under linux, is very very hard and it would be faster to use a high
> level C language...
> 
> The MMX engine on my PPC runs at about 234MHz.  That means my 300MHz G3
is
> able to do a 233MHz MMX... Pretty good.
> 
> And that is emulating.  If the game is ported and recompiled, it would
run
> a ton faster.
> 
> Windows is also the worst OS to program anything under.  All of the top
> compilers aren't posix compatible.  That means they don't use the
standard
> for code.
> 
> I can take a unix app, and port it to a posix target easily.
> 
> Once again, good points, but no base...

-dan

You standing in line?
You believing the lies?
You bowing down to this flag?
You've Got a Bullet in Your Head.




_______________________________________________________
Get your free, private e-mail at http://mail.excite.com/
Follow-Ups: