Andrew McGlashan <[email protected]> writes: > There is the whole RISC (ARM) vs CISC (x86) situation to consider.
Erm, AMD64 CPUs are RISC under the hood. > OTOH, an x86 chip with the latest power saving technologies gives > fuller complex instruction set (CIS part of CISC) ... AFAIK this is gibberish (unless you're in the habit of hand-writing assembly). > this can mean the that CPU handles a task extremely efficiently and > therefore more quickly, allowing the CPU to fall back to a lower power > setting (ala idle state) or give you more grunt when you need it I don't see how the ISA has any relevance to ACPI C states & their ARM equivalents. > At then end of the day, comparing ARM with x86 is like comparing apples > with oranges. If you only look at the clock, sure. That's true even between microarchitectures implementing the same ISA. You can meaningfully compare unalike systems using a benchmark like SPECint, though. (Synthetic benchmarks like dmips or bogomips are unlikely to give useful numbers.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhrystone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BogoMips > Or perhaps more so in the computing world, Motorola vs Intel. For > many years Apple made use of Motorola to great benefit, but they've > moved to Intel for various reasons Um, you're missing a big chunk of history there, namely the POWER derivatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture AFAIK the biggest drivers for Apple moving to Intel weren't "zomg it's fastaaaar" but fungibility, economies of scale, and politics. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
