Originally Posted by un-midas touch
Question: All power and cooling requirements met, which wins: RISC or CISC?
I'll admit I'm not versed in the pros and cons which emerge from comparing the two. I posted this out of blind intrigue.
There's still so many more variables involved. I mean maybe one day people will stop using the biased ICC compiler, move to HSA or similar, and CISC will get interesting again....but Intel seems on a path to kill itself if eventually people get tired of paying for it's premium pricing(which it has begun to raise slowly) when they could go out and try to develop something on ARM or MIPS designs. At the end of the day you have the coders and the way they use the architecture to account for as well. You can have the fastest CPU in the world and the best design but if no one codes for it or uses a compiler that doesn't allow it to be used fully...then it's not really the fastest CPU anymore.
From my very basic reading RISC seems like a better idea but I figure there had to be a reason CISC took off....or was that simply the market manipulations of MS and Intel at work?
Would love an to see what ARM can do at all levels. I get tired of people claiming it can't replace x86 when there simply hasn't been enough effort and porting of programs over to it to even come close to that assessment. Personally, I'd love ARM or MIPS to take over because they're not as likely to limit the amount of licensees and that's far better for competition then what we have in x86/CISC.