Risc CPUs
- Thread starter Nagaru
- Start date
FragTek
New member
RISC seems like a good direction to be headed, but standard CPU's are getting so cheap these days anyhow, I think I'd just rather have one of them. RISC puts more load on to the software which means it has to be programmed very well and has a lot more room for error. With that said, RISC is a lightning fast design and would definately be something interesting to see in the desktop computing environment.
@ nathan: RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Computer. Basically this means that it executes a limited number of simple instructions compared to todays CPU's which execute tons more, and more complex instructions. This makes the processor capable of running much faster and being produced with less transistors bringing down the cost of production.
@ nathan: RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Computer. Basically this means that it executes a limited number of simple instructions compared to todays CPU's which execute tons more, and more complex instructions. This makes the processor capable of running much faster and being produced with less transistors bringing down the cost of production.
FarFarAway
New member
RISC architecture is awesome but as Frag said it has fallen a bit by the wayside with the emphasis being on the hardware. with so many badly written software programs out there I think brute force seems to work better
Well the reason I was thinking about this was that the vast majority of programs are written in highlevel languages such as C which are compiled anyway. My thought was that by using RISC all you would need to change was the compiler, a vast oversimplification, but somewhat correct I think. The other advantage that I could see is that with a RISC processor you could have take much better advantage of each core, since most X86 instructions actually are computed somewhat in parallel within each core.
Rastalovich
New member
RISC was the way to go almost 20 years ago with the likes of the BBC`s Archimedes computers.
Their problem was the same problem every1 has ever face when producing an alternative to x86/m$ platforms.
At the time the Archi computers were very very good, with a good number of practicle applications used by schools in the UK (as part of a deal) and some businesses, but only a few "quality" entertainment packages, usually from the mainstayers of the bbc micro legacy. And of course u can play doom and quake on them.
The BBC ditched them (making computers) after a while and Apple started to move from the 68k to ppc motorola classes - which similarly are far more powerful than the equiv x86/m$ platforms.
By the time Apple went G3/4, u could forget any thoughts of competition, the x86 was/is being clocked faster and faster, with not really any great advances prior to things like mmx 3dnow and now cores. Just get more cycles with more transistors - as hot as u can, don`t worry about memory.
The motorola group of processors, as any1 who`s used them seriously can tell u, are and would have been a more beneficial way for the computing world to go. They don`t need cores to multitask for a start. They`ve been capable of multitasking since Amigas used them, we`re talking decades ago. Now the adverts on u`r tvs are about multitasking with u`r pc.. do several things at the same time... well duh! we could before.. but we didn`t and don`t need 20000gigs of fast fast fast memory to do it.
Risc is not a part of my assembly vocab, I pretty much got to the advanced 68k processors. Probably missed out on alot.
I want an Apple. >.<
Their problem was the same problem every1 has ever face when producing an alternative to x86/m$ platforms.
At the time the Archi computers were very very good, with a good number of practicle applications used by schools in the UK (as part of a deal) and some businesses, but only a few "quality" entertainment packages, usually from the mainstayers of the bbc micro legacy. And of course u can play doom and quake on them.
The BBC ditched them (making computers) after a while and Apple started to move from the 68k to ppc motorola classes - which similarly are far more powerful than the equiv x86/m$ platforms.
By the time Apple went G3/4, u could forget any thoughts of competition, the x86 was/is being clocked faster and faster, with not really any great advances prior to things like mmx 3dnow and now cores. Just get more cycles with more transistors - as hot as u can, don`t worry about memory.
The motorola group of processors, as any1 who`s used them seriously can tell u, are and would have been a more beneficial way for the computing world to go. They don`t need cores to multitask for a start. They`ve been capable of multitasking since Amigas used them, we`re talking decades ago. Now the adverts on u`r tvs are about multitasking with u`r pc.. do several things at the same time... well duh! we could before.. but we didn`t and don`t need 20000gigs of fast fast fast memory to do it.
Risc is not a part of my assembly vocab, I pretty much got to the advanced 68k processors. Probably missed out on alot.
I want an Apple. >.<
