Back in the mid 80's, I was an operating system architect at IBM during the first couple of versions of AIX (IBM's Unix system). This ran on a new RISC architecture that is now called POWER.

The idea for RISC came from the realization that complex instructions in a CISC processor still had to run a set of lower level functions provided by the hardware. Consider, for example, the CISC architecture of the DEC PDP-11 computer (the system that Unix was originally developed on). It's indirect addressing modes where used to store or load from an address found in a register; this is a frequently used addressing mode on both RISC and CISC machines. However, the PDP-11, being a CISC machine, had eight variations of indirect addressing that automatically incremented/decremented the memory address in the register by one or two, before or after the location was used, etc.

As an assembly language programmer I liked this because it seemed like I could get more work done in a single instruction when I was iterating over an array of data. However, this is an illusion. The hardware still had to do the work so that single instruction using autoincrement indirect addressing took more time to run.

RISC machines generally have a few very simple load and store instructions to access memory and most other instruction work on registers alone. The underlying hardware is more straight forward. The instructions have more predictable running time. It is easier to perform out of order execution and speculative execution since the instructions can be arranged to use non-overlapping set of registers.
For these reasons, the researchers developing RISC believed that they could achieve the same speed as CISC by running more instructions each running a bit faster than CISC instructions.

At this point, one might think that it is kind of a six of one, half-dozen kind of comparison where there is no clear advantage. But RISC has another advantage over CISC. Because the hardware is so straight forward it is easier for compilers to do very sophisticated optimizations. CISC computers often have special registers used by certain instructions differently than other registers. RISC computers usually have a larger number of basically identical registers. This makes register allocation much easier for compilers. On RISC computers, the instructions are often all of the same size again making it easier for compilers to arrange the instructions to fit better in the highest performing cache memory. The idea is that RISC is friendlier to compilers, and the combination of the fast simple instructions and advanced compilers will outperform the CISC machines.

This all sounds good and I consider IBM's POWER and the ARM architecture a success, but Intel is full of very smart people and they have proven that it's not entirely clear that RISC is better than CISC. Some complex instructions are just very useful, like Intel's vectorization instructions and the 2013 instructions that accelerate the calculation of SHA and SHA-256.

Lot's of factors are important in general purpose processor designs: virtual memory support (IBM's POWER has an inverted page table design for example), multiple compute units, virtualization, multicore, caches, good support for JIT compiler designs not just the AOT compilers envisioned when RISC was first being developed.

Intel's success and the need for backward compatability has shackled its current designs, and they have done very well despite this. Although I like the idea of a simpler faster architecture (RISC), Intel might be developing their own next generation processor architecture right now because this would fend off RISC-v and AMD too. They might come out with a new design that was RISC or CISC or a hybrid; it might even be wildly different like a very long instruction architecture.