Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 151.151.16.22 - "→CISC vs RISC: " |
|||
Line 59:
:[[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).
Instead of saying that CISC was succeeded, it would have been more accurate to have said that CISC was succeeded by RISC in the development of modern architectures, and that legacy architectures stopped executing CISC instructions directly and started breaking up the CISC instructions into RISC "micro-operations" as part of their execution. The Intel x86 and the IBM360 architectures fall in this category. The presence of these legacy architectures in desktops, servers, and mainframes is true, but I think that they are RISC systems that have a preprocessor in order to support CISC legacy code. Conceptually speaking, CISC is not a competitor to RISC for the reasons stated above. Amdahl's Law is very important in pipelining, but its general form says that the maximum expected improvement to an overall system is constrainted when only part of the system is improved. Thus devoting logic on a chip to CISC instructions is a poor choice when they are seldom used (due to compilers) and they can not be pipelined (due to widely varying execution times). Basically I think the section fails to mention that RISC won the CISC/RISC war. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/151.151.16.22|151.151.16.22]] ([[User talk:151.151.16.22|talk]]) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== instructions or operations? ==
| |||