Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks Message-ID: <302@raysnec.UUCP> Date: 24 Apr 91 21:10:31 GMT References: <71367@brunix.UUCP> <8lbG1vdl1@cs.psu.edu> <1991Apr18.180538.1@sif.claremont.edu> Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch Lines: 22 scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >??? The local Personal Iris with an R2000 is apparently the equal of >our NextStations. Not that that's bad - after all the NextStation costs >about 1/5 the price. Then again, the Iris is a couple years older, too. >The ones running with R4000 should be about 2-4 times the speed of an '040. There's something disingenuous about comparing that which *will* be available to that which *is* available. The '40 is already available in shipping products - and has been for six months - while the 4000, according to MIPS, won't be available before late '91. >I guess I really don't care what happens. There definitely is room for >both CISC and RISC. I don't see any processors in the near future >breaking the strangle-hold on the market that 80x86 and 680x0 have - CISC and RISC are more alike today than was the case years ago, as the designers of each learn the best techniques of their counter- parts. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech