Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!hydra!hylka!lindblad
From: lindblad@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <3865.2730b34b@cc.helsinki.fi>
Date: 1 Nov 90 23:44:11 GMT
References: <1156@iceman.jcu.oz> <22914@grebyn.com> <1990Oct30.230958.14019@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 20

In article <1990Oct30.230958.14019@engin.umich.edu>, gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes:
> In article <22914@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
>>In article <1156@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes:
> 
> The 040 kills the 88000 in floating point, but the 88000 is much faster
> than the 040 in a bunch of other things.

Well I don't think that 88000 is any faster than 040. Both chips do about 20
MIPS at 25 MHz. And CISC instructions do much more than RISC instructions. Of
course MIPS stands for meanigless instruction per second or somethink like
that. But generally CISC MIPS is a lot more than RISC MIPS.

> Eventually, CISC will not be able to keep up.  The design philosophies
> in RISC are generally better.  I don't think that cranking up the clockrate

Why couldn't CISC be able to keep up with RISC's. Pipelinig can do miracles.
Well, of course this means also that CISCs will became lot bigger and larger
than RISCs. Speed of computers in the future doesn't depend only on
microprocessors but also on memory chips. Speed of computers can't increase
forever unless speed of memorychips don't also get faster.