Re: Shit - it's all true
Re: Shit - it's all true
- Subject: Re: Shit - it's all true
- From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:35:29 -0400
On Jun 7, 2005, at 0:48, Allen Rongone wrote:
I am by no means an electrical engineer, but have more than 20
years experience with both CISC and RISC machines and it has been
my experience that RISC processors process instructions more
efficiently and faster due to their design. CISC chips use larger
dies to hold all the complex instructions while RISC chips use the
extra space to add more registers and buffers. By doing this they
can execute more instructions per cycle than their CISC counter parts.
On RISC processors each instruction takes only one cycle, whereas a
CISC processor may require multiple cycles to complete an
instruction. Then take into account pipelining. On a CISC chip, if
one instruction takes one cycle to complete in one pipeline and a
second instruction takes 4 cycles to complete in another pipeline a
misalignment could occur requiring additional resources to monitor
the output and reassemble the instructions in the correct order
that they were inputted. This overhead results in lower efficiency.
I understand that Intel tried to compensate for this with their MMX
technology (which by the way was a big flop) and now use SSE2.
However, the Intel approach to move the instruction set to hardware
still remains and results in more cycles to execute a certain
instruction, whereas the RISC design, eliminate the microcode from
the CPU and have the compilers optimize the code, results in one
instruction per cycle increases performance, not to mention the
reduction of productivity costs since they use less silicon to
produce a chip.
I regret that I don't have real-world numbers to prove my point but
I think the philosophy behind both designs speaks for it's self.
I'll agree that the CISC design is better for common integer
instructions (As those used in applications that deal mainly with
text and small numbers) but RISC far outperforms in areas that
require complex calculations (Video, Sound, Complex imaging and
scientific or engineering applications).
So I guess if you just want to write a letter or surf the web,
there's no real difference, but if you really want a computer with
"power" I would still take a RISC based machine over a CISC one. No
offense.
Anyway, that's my $.02 worth.
Allen
well, for a "proof" take a look here:
<http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2004&M=11>
see the damage that 2200 PowerPC chips the one people have inside
their G5s, can do.
i know, this is not a "proof", certainly this is not the only reason,
but it is a good indicator.
by the way, it generally blows away the 10% margin required.
deivy petrescu
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden