2 ms·

ARM isn't CISC and has, by sheer numbers, completely dominated x86 for decades now; not counting the massive number of MIPS, AVR, etc embedded chips. Additiona

• jcranmer 1y ago
  > Additionally, if you want to get super technical (as if there were ever a real delineation between RISC/CISC), both AMD and Intel decode x86 into internal micro-ops which are essentially RISC. Given that most CISC chips also relied on microcoding and micro-ops, x86 having micro-ops wouldn't have made it anything like RISC as far as the original CISC/RISC debate goes. The only reason that the "x86 is really RISC because of micro-ops" comes up is because x86 implementations are superscalar, which was supposed to be impossible with RISC chips, so people started coming up with the micro-op fudge to salvage the story that you need RISC to be an advanced modern microprocessor. The truth is that CISC was never a meaningful category in the first place (it was only ever "not-RISC"), and RISC itself ceased to be a meaningful category around 30 years ago.
  • deaddodo 1y ago
    > The truth is that CISC was never a meaningful category in the first place (it was only ever "not-RISC"), and RISC itself ceased to be a meaningful category around 30 years ago. Yeah, I think we're saying the same things. Thus the "(as if there were ever a real delineation between RISC/CISC)". It's an arbitrary delineation that means nothing today. But that's moot to OP's claim.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]