Comment by Closi
1 year ago
Put another way, "try to avoid instructions that can't be executed in a single clock cycle, as those introduce silicon complexity".
1 year ago
Put another way, "try to avoid instructions that can't be executed in a single clock cycle, as those introduce silicon complexity".
But that's not even close to true, either, eg any division or memory operation.
In practice there's no such thing as "RISC" or "CISC" anymore really, they've all pretty much converged. At best you can say "RISC" now just means that there aren't any mixed load + alu instructions, but those aren't really used in x86 much, either
You've hit the nail on the head. Really, when people complain about CISC vs RISC, they are mostly complaining about two particular things. The first is that x86 processors carry legacy baggage (aka they have had a long history of success that continues to this day) and the second is that x86 has a lot of variable length instructions. After that, most of the complaints are very nit-picky, such as the number of general purpose registers and how they are named.