I've got all three here, and it depends on what you're doing =-]
The Alphas and PPC boxes are very good at floating point math, since
both of them have architecture optimized libraries and lots of floating
point registers. My PPC box is just a 2x225MHz 604e but it routinely
stomps my 2x450MHz PIII at FP.
Integer wise, it's a toss-up. About everything does equally well
MHz for MHz, so the more the merrier.
Application support, on the other hand, for i386 is much better than
for either Alpha or PPC. People typically only compile for i386, so
lots of things have to be recompiled for PPC and Alpha. The PPC
being MSB byte ordered can sometimes throw simple applications off.
I don't think that there is anything that PPC is the best at, but
it can compete with all of the other architectures very well. This
is coming from a long-time Mac bigot. But now I've become more of a
UNIX bigot and only use the Mac for printing and DNET OGR crunching.
Since LinuxPPC doesn't support MY multiple processor configuration,
I've stopped using it for anything but testing. The box also has
old, flaky memory so I can't compile anything reliably. If Apple
would just support ECC memory, I might think of running a MacOS X
server, but since they don't, it's not even an option. Only an
extreme optimist would trust normal memory.
This post is 100% my opinion, feel free to post your own.
> >> does anyone have/know where to get benchmarks
> >> comparing the performance of linux on various
> >> processors? i want to know how much better
> >> linux PPC is than everything else :-)
> > If you're already decided, why bother with real-world numbers?
> Volatile mix of groups to post that in seems to be one of the
> factors. Better duck ;)