The RISC Vs CISC debate-still valid or irrelevant?

The processor business, over the
years, has seen its share of technological and ideological arguments. None, however, come
close to the zealotry that the RISC vs CISC architecture debate inspires. Perhaps it stems
from the time and money invested by companies which support these architectures. The truth
lies somewhere in between. Processors run on instructions. CISC or Complex Instruction Set
Computer is a method of using rich complex instructions to get a job done. It also makes
programs for CISC easier to write. The catch, however, is that the greater the complexity
of the instruction set the more processor cycles it takes to execute. RISC or Reduced
Instruction Set Computer as a design seeks to do away with this complexity by using
simpler, smaller instructions.The idea originated from the fact that 20% of the
instructions in a computer do 80% of the work.

Gaining performance advantage

An elegant method that makes the
distinction clearer and is taught in computer architecture books is the Classic
Performance Equation, which states that the number of cycles per instruction multiplied by
the instruction cycle time equals execution time. A processor therefore can be speeded up
in three ways: use fewer instructions for a given task; reduce the number of cycles for
some instructions; or speed up the clock-which refers to the speed ratings we are all so
familiar with-to decrease cycle time. CISC attempts to reduce the number of instructions
for a program while RISC tries to reduce the cycles per instruction. Over the years, to
gain performance advantage, both sides have borrowed heavily from each other. Clock speeds
have increased and the attempt has always been to get closer to the ideal. Pipelining is a
method used to achieve that-a classic example of an original RISC concept that is now used
in CISC designs as well. Pipelining is a technique whereby the processor processes more
than one instruction at a time.

The four operational stages of a
processor-fetch, decode, execute and write-are executed in parallel. At a very basic
level, an Intel Pentium-II chip takes its complex instructions, breaks them up into
smaller chunks (a la RISC) and processes them in parallel. At the opposite end of the
spectrum, a supposedly RISC processor like the G3 used in Apple Macintosh systems actually
has more instructions built in than a Pentium-II! In reality very few RISC processors
remain loyal to the original design goals with the exception of Compaq Alpha and the SGI
subsidiary MIPS' RX000 line of processor cores. And that explains where the business is
headed as well. RISC because of its simpler design consumes lesser power and the die
size-the area in which all the transistors are packed-is typically smaller. It is
therefore ideally suited for embedded applications-which is where MIPS seems to be headed.

The simplicity of design also makes
RISC processors cheaper to produce but that argument does not stand when you're competing
with the sort of volumes that Intel produces. In terms of sheer performance, RISC has not
fared too badly. RISC processors till very recently have maintained a lead in floating
point (mathematical) performance required for graphics applications. Only now are CISC
designs matching that performance. In terms of sheer performance, according to an
Illuminata Inc report, Alpha followed closely by Hewlett Packard's PA-RISC come out on
top. Intel's 64-bit processor due in mid-2000 will take a year or two to equal that
performance level. What the above arguments show is that RISC designs will for the near
future exist in the high-end enterprise class systems and in embedded applications. But
RISC is significant for its impact on processor design in general-so much so that it is
difficult to classify a processor as true to either.