View Single Post
Old 24 February 2017, 22:11   #29
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by absence View Post
I think you have to clarify what you mean, because it's pretty obvious to me that Intel had CISC expertise.
RISC was gaining on CISC in leaps and bounds during the early days (it is easier to make advances in something new). Intel initially had the old brain dead CISC philosophy which was going nowhere. They were behind Motorola in technology and may have even been the ones who bowed out of the market if IBM had not made the fateful decision to choose the x86 over the 68000. Intel was losing market share fast and fighting for their lives when the 68000 came out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David House
I can tell you at Intel it [the 68000] was pretty electrifying too... it was terrifying.
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=83699

Intel was able to ramp up development using the cash flow provided by the PC economies of scale. They made mistakes (Pentium 4) but trial and error and research with persistence took them to the top. Motorola bet on PPC (68060 was not clocked up or improved as it would have competed with PPC) right as RISC was discovering that clock speeds were not unlimited, all the complexity could not be moved into compilers and code density might be important after all. CISC found ways to improve with different techniques and could use some of the same techniques as RISC. CISC became a lower clocked but more powerful variant of RISC with innate code compression which was more powerful than the original unlimited clock speed super simplified RISC philosophy.

Last edited by matthey; 24 February 2017 at 22:18.
matthey is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04847 seconds with 9 queries