Colin Kilbane <colin at tyr.med.umn.edu> writes: > I have never heard that a cisc chip was more efficent than a risc chip. > It boils down to the most common operations that a processor executes. If > you can do the same process with fewer instructions, this translates to > fewer processor cycles per process so it is more efficent. Intel just > decided to do the hotrod method. To overcome the inefficent nature of our > cisc instruction set one can either soup up that chevy nova with a 435 hp > engine Moterola with it's risc chips took the bmw approach. Lets > redesign the whole car, or design a new one that is lighter, more > aerodynamic so it needs a smaller more efficent engine. Thats why we have > 1.7 ghz intels and 600mhz motorolas. Pardon the spelling, I'm a bit > drunk. Except that's the *opposite* of what we should have; it ought to be possible to fabricate the simpler chips in faster technologies. But Intel is pouring such tremendous research into fab and process work that the Intel chips have higher clock rates available. Of course it takes multiple cycles to complete most Intel instructions, whereas RISC instructions complete in one cycle. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd-b at dd-b.net SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/