PowerPC 750fx - very slow problem

**SupremeSpod** · 25 September 2003, 14:46

Data Alignment....?

**AtW** · 25 September 2003, 20:49

> What would be the most likely mistakes to make in
> programming a PowerPC 750fx chip

making a fundamentally wrong decision to support failed chip - its not 1983 it is 2003! :lol

**SupremeSpod** · 26 September 2003, 08:50

Shows what you know you commie twat!

IBM - PowerPC 750FX (Anaconda)
The 750FX is produced on a .13 micron process with Low-K Dielectric and Silicon-on-Insulator technology. There is greatly improved cache performance as well with a 512 KB L2 cache (opposed to 256 KB of cache in earlier 750CXe). There's also 256-bit cache lines instead of 64-bit, in addition to improved logic. That, along with the 200 MHz bus speed improve performance by 25% over the 750CXe at the same clock speed.

**zeitghost** · 26 September 2003, 11:40

Bit faster than a 6800 then...

**AtW** · 26 September 2003, 21:55

> Shows what you know you commie twat!

thanks mate

What I know is that x86 cpus give more bang for the buck - smart people like Google know what they doing by using lots of cheap boxes with x86 cpus. As far as I am concerned Motorola's designs died the day Intel reached 90% market share.

**OrangeHopper** · 28 September 2003, 10:28

Another one of those idiotic arguments. Having a small market share doesn't mean you don't have a hugely profitable company.

For example, Apple only sell a small percentage of the total number of PCs, however, they have been/are/were in the top five PC manufacturers in the world. Not something to be sniffed at.

We all know that having the major share of the market is very rarely due to design or technical excellence.

**SupremeSpod** · 28 September 2003, 14:02

Power Consumption...

AtW,

Different horses for different courses. I notice you were being your usual helpful self!

Threaded, have you checked your data alignment?

**AtW** · 28 September 2003, 20:46

OrangeHopper: agree with you but not in regards to Motorola and Apple - the former is struggling to become profitable and the latter's profitability is not that great.

> however, they have been/are/were in the top five PC
> manufacturers in the world.

this is a misleading figure - a LOT of people buy their computers from local small companies, so martket below Top 10 is extremely fragmented but overall these small companies have more than 50% of sales (last time I checked).

> We all know that having the major share of the market is
> very rarely due to design or technical excellence.

Thank God that "design or technical excellence" do not win all the time - sorry but there are practical things in this world such as cost of processor - Intel won on cost and compatibility grounds.

Just wait till Apple switches to x86 architecture in 3-5 years time. Remember - you heard it here first!

Anyway, since I am not helping as Spod correctly pointed out, I will shut up.

**threaded** · 1 October 2003, 13:54

Re: Power Consumption...

Spod: that was an additional issue, but the main one was something else really dumb and the client won't thank me for telling you all they've spent several months looking for a hardware mistake in the software... Doh!

PowerPC 750fx - very slow problem