Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

g5 ---> arm

H

homeshire

macrumors regular
Original poster
still pounding away on my g5 iMac. nothing broken, everything smooth.

now here's my fantasy -- I go straight from a g5 to an arm mac.

am I being stupid?

just wondering. 😀
 
Why?
just drank too much kool aid in the old days concerning risc vs. cisc

What?

none now. but don't you think that iphone is just a few years removed from being your computer? we'll carry it around in our pockets all day, and when we get home, we plug in (wirelessly?) to our keyboards, monitors and hds, and off we go.

that's what I see in my crystal ball. but what do I know.
🙂
 
trose said:
News Flash. You're 100% wrong.

While I can't speak for Atom or perhaps some specialized server CPUs, Intel and AMD are still producing CISC CPUs as the vast majority of their lineup.
Click to expand...

flopticalcube said:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/10351/2


RISC won years ago.
Click to expand...

You are both wrong. 😀

The "winner" is really the hybrid concept of the Intel architecture. Using RISC at the core of the processor allows for high excecution speeds. CISC commands on the outside reduce memory bandwidth, and the translation layer makes it possible to lay out the RISC commands adjusted to a specific CPU type. Like that, the same x86 (or x64) code can produce optimal RISC code for different families or generations of processors.
 
Has anyone ever tried scaling ARM up to something like a 40-60w (or possibly more) high-performance CPU? All the ARM chips I've ever heard of are embedded things.
 
I'm sort of hoping that's what Apple has in mind. scale the arm up to a full-fledged system powerful enough to call an everyday computing experience. I'm not saying intel macs will disappear, rather that there will be an option to go with an arm system.

I realize that splits the platform in a manner. But the platform's been split. It's just a question how far Apple wants to take it.

I think they want to go far with it given their recent purchases and hires.
 
ARM is for mobile not desktops. Even the new iPhone will only be 600mhz, do you really want to devolve 10 years in computing power?

The iPhone feels fast because it only has to work with a 480×320 262k color screen. Make it work with 15x that at a higher color density (1920x1200, millions of possible colors) and it wouldn't do more than crawl like an infant.
 
but I'm not talking about today. I'm trying to use some imagination, and as I acknowledged, looking a few years down the road.

Or, to use a quickly tiring cliche, I'm trying to see where the puck's goin'.

Intel is for the desktop. Arm is for embedded. But where's the future?

I'm guessing our pockets, not our desks. 😉
 
Thats what smart phones are for. They will never be a replacement for desktop computing. Physics has its limits and most people want something bigger than a 3" screen to look at.
 
homeshire said:
I'm guessing our pockets, not our desks. 😉
Click to expand...

While there is a future in mobile computing, I don't foresee large screens going away - ever. I certainly won't trade even my 13" screen for a pocket-sized device full time.
 
r.j.s said:
While there is a future in mobile computing, I don't foresee large screens going away - ever. I certainly won't trade even my 13" screen for a pocket-sized device full time.
Click to expand...

I agree, but as I said earlier... the (coming iphone-like device) is just a few years removed from being our computer. we'll carry it around in our pockets all day, and when we get home, we plug in (wirelessly?) to our keyboards & monitors and off we go.
 
Berlepsch said:
You are both wrong. 😀

The "winner" is really the hybrid concept of the Intel architecture. Using RISC at the core of the processor allows for high excecution speeds. CISC commands on the outside reduce memory bandwidth, and the translation layer makes it possible to lay out the RISC commands adjusted to a specific CPU type. Like that, the same x86 (or x64) code can produce optimal RISC code for different families or generations of processors.
Click to expand...

Touché

This is the best answer, I suppose. Though, I'm still more apt to call a Core CPU CISC based than I am to call it RISC... seeing as all the instructions from programs are sent to the CPU as CISC...
I'm not going to be able to run RISC compiled apps on a Intel CPU, therefore I don't consider it a RISC processor.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, though...
 
Berlepsch said:
You are both wrong. 😀

The "winner" is really the hybrid concept of the Intel architecture. Using RISC at the core of the processor allows for high excecution speeds. CISC commands on the outside reduce memory bandwidth, and the translation layer makes it possible to lay out the RISC commands adjusted to a specific CPU type. Like that, the same x86 (or x64) code can produce optimal RISC code for different families or generations of processors.
Click to expand...
To be fair to me, because I always am, I did call the Intel CPUs RISC-based. Obviously the instruction set can't be reduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back