Comparison of RISC (ARM, PowerPC) and CISC (x86) architectures
Comparison of RISC (ARM, PowerPC) and CISC (x86) architectures
MiPS draws from RISC principles yet sits in a middle ground with CISC. This explains the delay in reaching emulation tools.
it seems there are some concerns about the original message. i've reviewed this topic many times before. the ps2's processor is a two-way superscalar in-order RISC design. most consoles rely on risc architecture (i believe over 95% of them), which is why the ps3 doesn<|pad|> to lack an emulator. the general idea is that a slower system needs a faster one to simulate it, around eight times speed. emulating ciscp processors is particularly challenging since they often lack clear documentation and are complex. you can find discussions about emulating the first xbox using an intel celeron here: http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132032. what you're asking relates to why risc is more economical compared to architectures like arm, which are used in powerpc systems from ibm and are costly. intel invests heavily in fabrication facilities and research, pushing them to the cutting edge, which naturally increases expenses.