Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!sif.claremont.edu!greg
From: greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.192605.1@sif.claremont.edu>
Date: 18 Apr 91 02:26:05 GMT
References: <71367@brunix.UUCP> <8lbG1vdl1@cs.psu.edu> <1991Apr10.155032.14786@data.com> <1991Apr15.165540.14270@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
Organization: Pomona College
Lines: 20

In article <1991Apr15.165540.14270@agate.berkeley.edu>, doug@eris.berkeley.edu (Doug Merritt) writes:
>
> [fairly well reasoned argument that RISC is better than CISC deleted]

There is one monkey wrench that no one seems to think about.  Gallium
Arsenide.  CISC chips used to make a great deal of sense when memory was
so much slower than CPUs.  Instead of wasting clock cycles sitting around
idle waiting for memory, the CISC chip would perform a complex instruction
that took multiple clock cycles.  Now that memory has done a fairly good
job of catching up, RISC makes a great deal of since.  That's where GaAs
comes in.  It is much faster than silicon, and much more expensive.  The
price is going to stay high for some time.  Unless you're paying supercomputer
prices, that means you can't build a whole GaAs computer.  If anything, its
just going to be the CPU.  Once again, your CPU will be so much faster than
your memory that CISC is going to be the more productive design.

|   Greg Orman                                 greg@pomona.claremont.edu   |
|                 If you believe then the time has come                    |
|                 For serious fun                                          |
|                                         - Fieger/Averre                  |