home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.arch      Apparently more than just beeps & boops      131,241 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 129,732 of 131,241   
   Thomas Koenig to Terje Mathisen   
   Re: CISCs, uOps, and books   
   20 Sep 25 17:38:19   
   
   From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Terje Mathisen  schrieb:   
   > Anton Ertl wrote:   
   >> EricP  writes:   
   >>> I see the difference between CISC and RISC as in the micro-architecture,   
   >>   
   >> But the microarchitecture is not an architectural criterion.   
   >>   
   >>> changing from a single sequential state machine view to multiple concurrent   
   >>> machines view, and from Clocks Per Instruction to Instructions Per Clock.   
   >>   
   >> People changed from talking CPI to IPC when CPI started to go below 1.   
   >> That's mainly a distinction between single-issue and superscalar CPUs.   
   >>   
   >>> The monolithic microcoded machine, which covers 360, 370, PDP-11, VAX,   
   >>> 386, 486 and Pentium, is like a single threaded program which   
   >>> operates sequentially on a single global set of state variables.   
   >>> While there is some variation and fuzziness around the edges,   
   >>> the heart of each of these are single sequential execution engines.   
   >>   
   >> The same holds true for the MIPS R2000, the ARM1/2 (and probably many   
   >> successors), probably early SPARCs and early HPPA CPUs, all of which   
   >> are considered as RISCs.  Documents about them also talk about CPI.   
   >>   
   >> And the 486 is already pipelined and can perform straight-line code at   
   >> 1 CPI; the Pentium is superscalar, and can have up to 2 IPC (in   
   >> straight-line code).   
   >   
   > Maybe relevant:   
   >   
   > Performance optimizers writing asm regularly hit that 1 IPC on the 486   
   > and (with more difficulty) 2 IPC on the Pentium.   
   >   
   > When we did get there, the final performance was typically 3X compiled C   
   > code.   
   >   
   > That 3X gap almost went away (maybe 1.2 to 1.5X for many algorithms) on   
   > the PPro and later OoO CPUs.   
      
   And then came back with SIMD, I presume? :-)   
      
   --   
   This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence,   
   artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity,   
   artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca