Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: RISC cache vs CISC u-code
Message-ID: <6491@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 17:44:37 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6491
Posted: Tue Mar 11 17:44:37 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 17:44:37 EST
References: <136@pyramid.UUCP> <570@imag.UUCP> <4521@think.ARPA>, <765@harvard.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 24

> The point is that you can't assume that RISC machines have caches...

Only the well-designed ones do.

> ...as near as I can tell, an RT has much less performance than a
> SUN 3 (lousy floating point and I/O as well as no cache), but costs twice as
> much...

Nobody said the RT was particularly well designed.

> ...So, if RISC machines need caches to perform well, then CISC machines
> win out, at least at the bottom end of the market.

At the very bottom, maybe.  Most CISC machines have caches nowadays.  The
68020 inside the Sun 3 does, for example.

> I highly recommend reading IBM RT PERSONAL COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY - its very well
> written, and it shows you what the pros and cons of a real machine.

So long as you don't take it as saying much about the general merits of
RISCs...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry