>>95,96
I'm saying x86 has a lot of performance potential. They might not've been fast before but they can certainly take advantage of it going forward.
>>98
http://www.spec.org/cgi-bin/osgresults?conf=cpu2006;op=dump;format=csvdump
CINT2006rate:
POWER POWER7@4.0GHz, 1024 threads (256 cores * 4 threads/core) => 11300 -> 11.035 result/thread, 2.76 result/thread/GHz
X86 Xeon X7542@2.67GHz, 384 threads (384 cores * 1 thread/core) => 8190 -> 21.328 result/thread, 8.018 result/thread/GHz
ITANIUM Itanium2-9040@1.6GHz, 256 threads (256 cors * 1 threads/core) => 3520 -> 13.75 result/thread, 8.594 result/thread/GHz
SPARC64 Sparc64 VII+@3.0GHz, 512 threads (256 cores * 2 threads/core) => 3150 -> 6.152 result/thread, 2.051 result/thread/GHz
And just for the lulz...
X86 Celeron G550@2.6GHz, 2 threads (2 cores * 1 threads/core) => 58.5 -> 29.25 result/thread, 11.25 result/thread/GHz
So we see x86 and Itanium beating the shit out of POWER and SPARC.
CFP2006rate:
POWER POWER7@4.0GHz, 1024 threads (256 cores * 4 threads/core) => 10500 -> 10.25 result/thread, 2.56 result/thread/GHz
X86 Xeon X7542@2.67GHz, 384 threads (384 cores * 1 thread/core) => 6600 -> 17.19 result/thread, 6.44 result/thread/GHz
ITANIUM Itanium2-9040@1.6GHz, 256 threads (256 cors * 1 threads/core) => 3510 -> 13.71 result/thread, 8.569 result/thread/GHz
SPARC64 Sparc64 VII+@3.0GHz, 512 threads (256 cores * 2 threads/core) => 2550 -> 4.98 result/thread, 1.66 result/thread/GHz
And again, the low-end x86...
X86 Celeron G550@2.6GHz, 2 threads (2 cores * 1 threads/core) => 57.2 -> 28.6 result/thread, 11.0 result/thread/GHz
Total x86 domination.
No MIPSes, Alphas, nor ARMs found in the results, so can't compare there.
Maybe back in the early 90s RISC would've enabled higher clockspeeds since that was how they played the performance tradeoff, but post-Netburst we all know that other things come into play and you can't raise the clockspeed infinitely high no matter how "simple" you make the design.