Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!rex!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!winchester!mash From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: CISC Silent Spring Message-ID: <35456@mips.mips.COM> Date: 3 Feb 90 17:47:29 GMT References: <3300098@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <771@sce.carleton.ca> Sender: news@mips.COM Reply-To: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 28 In article <771@sce.carleton.ca> greg@sce.UUCP (Greg Franks) writes: >In article <3300098@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> >>Here's a rhetorical question: >> >>When was the last time someone introduced a new CISC architecture? >>How many years has it been? New versions of old chips ('486, '040, >>etc) do not count as "new architectures". > >The big players in the microprocessor wars are busy souping up their >existing CISC processors all of the time, so why would they bother >concocting new ones. People sure like having the latest CPU on their >desk to run lotus 123 or MacDraw. Furthermore, with the lastest CISC >processors reaching into the domain of the RISC processors in terms of >performance (eg, 68040 @ 25 MHz being faster than SPARC @ 25 MHz >according to Byte), My Byte's are in the middle of the input stack. Could someone please post the DATA that shows a 68040 @ 25Mhz to be faster than a SPARC @ 25Mhz? (yes, I've seen the Motorola ads that show the 68040 to be 20 mips versus a SPARC's 18.... :-) On the good side of reality, plaudits to UNIX/World, which has started publishing SPEC numbers (full charts) in some of its workstation comparisons. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086