Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!voder!apple!bcase
From: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Intel 432's evolves into a RISC???
Message-ID: <7246@apple.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jan 88 18:23:06 GMT
References: <243@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> <2707@omepd> <1071@cpocd2.UUCP>
Reply-To: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 20

In article <1071@cpocd2.UUCP> howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
>If anyone sees a photo of the chip, here's an easy way to tell RISC from CISC:
>Identify the datapath and RAM (including register file and cache).  If they
>add up to less than half the chip area, it's a CISC.  That's because the rest
>is probably all control, and any chip that's more than half control does not
>have a simple architecture.
>	Howard A. Landman

Waaait a minute.  I'm sure Howard knows what he is talking about and that
his point is valid, but it is somewhat badly stated (and I am compelled to
clear up the mistatement).  There are other uses for chip area than data
path, register file, and cache.  There are bus controllers and special
function units to name two.  A very complex bus controller might be
necessary, and it might take up significiant area, but its presence
doesn't make a CISC.  As technology improves, the test as Howard states
it will be less and less accurate (I think).

BTW, I have recently heard some people from Australia and England pronounce
CISC as "kisk."  Anyone know if this is the way it really "should" be
pronounced.  Respond by mail please....