Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

CISC vs RISC

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 4:37

It's been a long time since the last discussion about this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 4:45

It's been settled: RISC > CISC. The only CISC architecture still around is x86/64, and only for legacy reasons. Every other major architecture is RISC. Hell, even Intel CPUs are really RISC; they convert the x86 instructions into a simpler internal representation.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 7:12

The discussion is pointless now. Like >>2 said, modern CISCs are actually RISCs with a CISC ``layer''. It doesn't matter anymore.

Name: Crash Override 2011-02-23 10:57

RISC is good.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 11:41

RISC + CISC (>>2) > *

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 17:13

There's little point to choose one as people don't code to architectures, only platforms. Your compiler would probably generate better code than you do.

Name: sageru 2011-02-24 1:51

>>6
Then why do people use assembly when optimizing functions, etc that get's called most frequently?

Is it because they can brag about it?s

Newer Posts

CISC vs RISC

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 4:37

2 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 4:45

3 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 7:12

4 Name: Crash Override 2011-02-23 10:57

5 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 11:41

6 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-23 17:13