PowerPC G5 Chip vs. AMD64 Chip

RGrphc2

RGrphc2

...InSaNe...
This one PC Geek (i'm the only one of my friends with a Mac, and yes i made fun of for it ) i know claims that the AMD64 chip is more stable* that the PowerPC G5. Is this true??

*Has more Frontside BUS, Bigger L2 Cache, and some other stuff that i just couldnt understand...i just crawled into the fetal position in the corner ;)
 
Simply not true. The PowerPC chip has a smaller pipeline (which is an advantage) and though the L2 cache is smaller it runs at full processor speed, unlike the AMD. The amount of cache on chip at full processor speed is higher, and so on ...

Either way, I certainly wouldn't argue that the AMD was more "stable".
 
Any amount of stability AMD may give you is lost as soon as you put that Microsoft CD in the drive.
 
Pengu said:
Any amount of stability AMD may give you is lost as soon as you put that Microsoft CD in the drive.
Click to expand...

LMFAO. He's one of those Mac-Haters...don't understand i think it's because he can't build one himself
 
The AMD Opteron is a very very good chip. The cache runs at full speed unlike some have claimed, and it also has an onboard memory controller that really reduces the latency of accessing main memory.
That said, the G5 is no slouch either. In fact, the G5 and Opteron share many similarities. Head on over to http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html and read those G5 articles. You'll see that the Opteron and G5 are quite similar in a lot of ways.

I've used an AMD64 laptop for 4 months (April - August 2004) and I'm quite impressed with the CPU. It's a very fast processor.

However, as others have pointed out it still runs Windows :(. You could put Linux on it, but then you don't get as much commercial support like you do with Windows or Macs. That IMHO is the biggest drawback of the Opteron. Great hardware, so-so software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top