undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbrudgers14y ago0 comments

>"Unless you know something I don't."

Based upon history, reports of the x86's death have been greatly exaggerated - since the late 1980's.

Here's a nice 1999 article from Ars: [http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html]

and the archive.org version for those without IE4 or Netscape Navigator: [http://web.archive.org/web/19991129051550/http://arstechnica...]

Floating Point operations are an example of the hurdle faced by the RISC processors such as ARM - RISC ideology suggests that dedicated FPU hardware and instructions should not be used despite the performance hit that software implementations incur.

On the other hand, the x86 CISC approach has allowed for increased integration based on changing market demands over the past 20 years (e.g. FPU integration with the 80486 in 1989 and MMX in 1996 on the Pentium).

That sort of flexibility has advantages.

0 comments

yvdriess14y ago

I just want to point out that the RISC/CISC term is anachronistic, it doesn't really apply anymore to the desktop and server world. Intel's x86 processors are RISC micro-instructions but with a CISC-like interface for example, effectively blending both. It's what allowed them to race ahead of all competitors in the first place.

edit: My excuses, I couldn't access the cited arstechnica article.

obtu14y ago

The linked Ars Technica article in fact agrees with you, but retains the term to describe competing design philosophies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse