Architecture Comparison and Evaluation

Abstract

Currently, there are several processor architectures on the market, dominated by the x86 architecture on the desktop and the ARM in embedded devices and should therefore be included in an architectural comparison. Thus without even brief analysis, how resilient computing “fit” these available architectures and why we need to develop our own ERRIC , our implementation and application would be incomplete. The core of the analysis of instruction set and impact on computer architecture was presented in Schagaev et al. (Instruction set and their impact on modern computer architecture, 1989, [1]). Since then nothing much has been changed in architecture, few system architectures were lost in the market competition (not the worst one, to be honest), leaving SPARC , Intel, and ARM with lion shares of the market. The SPARC processor is included in this comparison, as it is heavily used in space, especially the fault-tolerant version LEON3 (LEON3-FT SPARC V8-RTAX—Data Sheet and User’s manual, 2009, [2]). In order to have a consistent comparison, we only compare the 32-bit versions of the respective processors, although 64-bit versions are available for the x86 and SPARC architecture. Both the SPARC and the ARM processors are RISC based and are thus quite similar in the instruction set , whereas the x86 architecture is CISC based and provides a multitude of instructions in comparison to the other architectures. The x86 is also the only architecture that allows using memory locations directly in instructions (register memory architecture), whereas RISC machines (load and store architecture) must first load the argument into a register. This enormous number of instructions leads to the curious situation that the instruction decoder of the Intel Atom CPU needs as much space as a complete ARM Cortex-A5 (Nachwuchs fr die die cortex-a-familie, 2009, [3]).