Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 173.66.233.28 - "→CISC vs RISC: " |
Guy Harris (talk | contribs) →CISC vs RISC: Well.... |
||
Line 52:
Most of the discussion on this page is about historical machines, but shouldn't there be something about how CISC was succeeded by RISC because of the emphasis on pipelining for efficiency, the failure of compiler writers to generate machine code that actually utilized the more complicated CISC instruction, and that the CISC architectures violated Amdahl's law in terms of the biggest bang for the buck? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.66.233.28|173.66.233.28]] ([[User talk:173.66.233.28|talk]]) 05:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Given that the primary instruction set architecture for desktop and laptop personal computers, and two of the significant instruction set architectures for servers, are CISC, I'm not sure it was fully "succeeded" by RISC, although the primary instruction set architecture for smartphones and tablets is RISC, and a lot of embedded computing uses various RISC architectures.
:The section "The RISC idea" does mention pipelining; the point about compilers not using some aspects of CISC is mentioned in the "Hardware utilization" section of the [[reduced instruction set computing]] article.
:[[Amdahl's law]] doesn't seem to say anything about bang-for-the-buck; it discusses the speedup available for a particular program from parallelizing it (which applies to CISC or RISC).
== instructions or operations? ==
| |||