Originally posted by: Leros
Since Apple has switched to the x86 architecture, that means that the majority of the consumer computers are now using x86 processors. Is it bad that there are virtually no competitors to the x86 architecture in the consumer market?
There is competition in the x86 market place though, Intel, AMD, and VIA.
This hardware comprises a very small percentage (if I remember right, <5% in P4s) of the transistors on the CPU
<1% actually. Much less than 1% at this point I think.
Anyhow, being stuck with the x86 architecture somewhat limits alternative computer paradigms, particularly ones that depend on a different memory hierarchy, but the preexisting software and coding practices also limit that.
-N64: MIPS 4300i
-PlayStation: MIPS 3000a
-Dreamcast: SH-4 RISC CPU
-PlayStation 2: MIPS 5900
-GameCube: 500mhz PowerPC Gekko
-Xbox: Pentium III - the only X86 CPU in the lot
-Xbox 360: 3.2ghz POWER-based triple-core CPU
-Wii: PowerPC based Broadway at 730mhz
-PlayStation III: IBM Cell (totally different from everything else).
1. Those were all preexisting architectures targetted for other markets prior to consoles.
2. Prior to this gen, the xbox's cpu was the most powerful console cpu ever seen; and it was slow for a pc cpu at the time of the xbox's launch. (and for some code, the cell and 360 are only supposed to be running between the same speed as the xbox cpu to twice the speed)
3. Cell is still Power based, with coprocessors.
You might be able to make a slightly bigger cache or smaller chip (cheaper) with out the x86 compatability but there's no way you would sell anywhere near as much.
x86 instructions are actually less cache hungry than many other ISAs. (at the side effect that they're a real pain to design hardware around or program for, at the low level anyhow)