Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbcad!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!lzaz!bds
From: bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Atari Transputers ? & A British ST/Amiga Rival ?
Message-ID: <21@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 7-Oct-87 08:48:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzaz.21
Posted: Wed Oct  7 08:48:14 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 17:39:57 EDT
References: <8709181728.AA13664@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1623@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1717@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 8
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.atari.st:5549 comp.sys.misc:907 comp.sys.amiga:9182

One major point about RISC that I haven't seen mentioned, is that a simpler
instruction set implies that a LOT less silicon is devoted to micro-code.
This silicon can be used for other things such as a large number of
registers or, in the Transputers case, support of high speed serial
communication lines. One reason RISC's execute faster is that access to
on chip memory (e.g. registers) is faster than accessing off chip registers.
Also, in some RISCs the instruction set is implemented using
logic as opposed to micro-code which is usually faster too.