In article <C5w9J7.JLL@Nyongwa.CAM.ORG> angcl@Nyongwa.CAM.ORG (Claude Angers) writes: >In article <C5rx8B.Kzp@ecf.toronto.edu> leebr@ecf.toronto.edu (LEE BRIAN) writes: >>In article <1qu8ud$2hd@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> eugene@mpce.mq.edu.au writes: >>>In article <C5o1yq.M34@csie.nctu.edu.tw> ghhwang@csie.nctu.edu.tw (ghhwang) writes: >>>> >>>>Dear friend, >>>>  The RISC means "reduced instruction set computer". The RISC usually has  >>>>small instruction set so as to reduce the circuit complex and can increase  >>>>the clock rate to have a high performance. You can read some books about >>>>computer architecture for more information about RISC. >>> >>>hmm... not that I am an authority on RISC ;-) but I clearly remember >>>reading that the instruction set on RISC CPUs is rather large. >>>The difference is in addressing modes - RISC instruction sets are not >>>as orthogonal is CISC. >>> >>>--  >> >>Theoretically supposed to be reduced.... not any longer.  That's why everyone >>is arguing about RISC v.s. CISC.  Personally, I think CISC will win out. >>Just take a look at the Pentium!  (Not that I like Intel architectures either, >>but that's another story...) >> >>bye! >> > >Do you mean that the Pentium is better than a Risc?  or that it will outsell >them all?  If the first, you have to remember that intel CISC (like the >pentium) are a always a generation away from the best riscs... also Riscs >cpu are more costly because they are not sold in the same quantities (not >even on the same order)...  but I remember reading about 3 years (maybe 2) >about a T800(?) from hypercube that did a 100 mips, was superscallar AND >reordered its instruction itself so  I'm not 100% sure, but I think the T800 was a 25MHz transputer?  so ya tie a gazillion of them together to get 100mips.  (The newest is the T9000 which kicks anyone's butt :)... haven't seen them used much though).  Anyway, to respond, I think the Pentium (CISC) is better than the more advanced RISC (e.g., like the alpha, etc.  the 66MHz Pentium has approximately the same "performance" as the superduper 133MHz Alpha - here, performance is the weird Specint92 that everyone refers to? - this is what I *heard* - the Alpha still kicks in the P5's butt in fp - again, this is what I *heard*). and in the computing world, if you sell lots of chips (like intel), and make it faster (like intel), you are the winner (like intel), even though you have a sucky architecture from over 10 years ago (like intel :0).  If you can make a "CISC" chip (superscalar, superduperpipelined, superfast) with the ideas behind the "RISC" ideology, you got a CISC chip.  And then I admit I can't see the advantages of RISC over CISC...  If the latest technology is a generation behind, then it sucks (relatively speaking).  Now I may sound like I like intel, but I'll have to say that the P5 is some real kick butt pile of Si and SiO2...  But I hope that Motorola really catches up with the 68K line... or I'm gonna start crying...  brian  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian "Hojo" Lee       | "Hey, excuse me miss, could I have a .GIF of you?" leebr@ecf.toronto.edu  | leebr@eecg.toronto.edu | (try Linux... the best and free UN*X clone!)