Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!rice!ariel.rice.edu!preston
From: preston@ariel.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks
Message-ID: <1991May7.152921.3307@rice.edu>
Date: 7 May 91 15:29:21 GMT
References: <1991May2.162909.9165@news.arc.nasa.gov> <819@cadlab.sublink.ORG> <1991May7.061500.7485@marlin.jcu.edu.au>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 17

csrdh@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Rowan Hughes) writes:

>I'm a little puzzled by the discussions involving vector vs. risc s-scalar.
>Given similar hardware, and an appropriate (vectorizable) algorithm
>the vector method should always be much faster.

I don't see why.  Currently it's true, but current vector machines
involve a lot more hardware $$ than current superscalars.
Superscalars can run vector code fast, plus they can run
lots of non-vector code fast.  I'd say they superscede vector
machines (or will soon).

Marty Hopkins made similar comments at ASPLOS recently.
So I guess I don't expect to see new vector machines with RISC techniques.
Instead, I expect to see superscalars with better compilers.

Preston Briggs