CISC vs RISC By Armin Gerritsen - Which one is better? RISC vs CISC is a topic quite popular on the Net.

Everytime Intel (CISC) or Apple (RISC) introduces a new CPU, the topic pops up again. But what are CISC and RISC exactly, and is one of them really better? This article tries to explain in simple terms what RISC and CISC are and what the future might bring for the both of them. This article is by no means intended as an article pro-RISC or proCISC. You draw your own conclusions CISC Pronounced sisk, and stands for Complex Instruction Set Computer. Most PC's use CPU based on this architecture. For instance Intel and AMD CPU's are based on CISC architectures. Typically CISC chips have a large amount of different and complex instructions. The philosophy behind it is that hardware is always faster than software, therefore one should make a powerful instructionset, which provides programmers with assembly instructions to do a lot with short programs. In common CISC chips are relatively slow (compared to RISC chips) per instruction, but use little (less than RISC) instructions. RISC Pronounced risk, and stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computer. RISC chips evolved around the mid-1980 as a reaction at CISC chips. The philosophy behind it is that almost no one uses complex assembly language instructions as used by CISC, and people mostly use compilers which never use complex instructions. Apple for instance uses RISC chips. Therefore fewer, simpler and faster instructions would be better, than the large, complex and slower CISC instructions. However, more instructions are needed to accomplish a task. An other advantage of RISC is that - in theory - because of the more simple instructions, RISC chips require fewer transistors, which makes them easier to design and cheaper to produce. Finally, it's easier to write powerful optimised compilers, since fewer instructions exist.

RISC vs CISC There is still considerable controversy among experts about which architecture is better. Some say that RISC is cheaper and faster and therefor the architecture of the future. Others note that by making the hardware simpler, RISC puts a greater burden on the software. Software needs to become more complex. Software developers need to write more lines for the same tasks.

Therefore they argue that RISC is not the architecture of the future, since conventional CISC chips are becoming faster and cheaper anyway. RISC has now existed more than 10 years and hasn't been able to kick CISC out of the market. If we forget about the embedded market and mainly look at the market for PC's, workstations and servers I guess a least 75% of the processors are based on the CISC architecture. Most of them the x86 standard (Intel, AMD, etc.), but even in the mainframe territory CISC is dominant via the IBM/390 chip. Looks like CISC is here to stay Is RISC than really not better? The answer isn't quite that simple. RISC and CISC architectures are becoming more and more alike. Many of today's RISC chips support just as many instructions as yesterday's CISC chips. The PowerPC 601, for example, supports more instructions than the Pentium. Yet the 601 is considered a RISC chip, while the Pentium is definitely CISC. Further more today's CISC chips use many techniques formerly associated with RISC chips. So simply said: RISC and CISC are growing to each other. x86 An important factor is also that the x86 standard, as used by for instance Intel and AMD, is based on CISC architecture. X86 is th standard for home based PC's. Windows 95 and 98 won't run at any other platform. Therefore companies like AMD an Intel will not abandoning the x86 market just overnight even if RISC was more powerful. Changing their chips in such a way that on the outside they stay compatible with the CISC x86 standard, but use a RISC architecture inside is difficult and gives all kinds of overhead which could undo all the possible gains. Nevertheless Intel and AMD are doing this more or less with their current CPU's. Most acceleration mechanisms available to RISC CPUs are now available to the x86 CPU's as well. Since in the x86 the competition is killing, prices are low, even lower than for most RISC CPU's. Although RISC prices are dropping also a, for instance, SUN UltraSPARC is still more expensive than an equal performing PII workstation is. Equal that is in terms of integer performance. In the floating point-area RISC still holds the crown. However CISC's 7th generation x86 chips like the K7 will catch up with that. The one exception to this might be the Alpha EV-6. Those machines are overall about twice as fast as the fastest x86 CPU available. However this Alpha chip costs about 20000, not something you're willing to pay for a home PC. Maybe interesting to mention is that it's no coincidence that AMD's K7 is developed in cooperation with Alpha and is for al large part based on the same Alpha EV-6 technology. EPIC The biggest threat for CISC and RISC might not be eachother, but a new technology called EPIC. EPIC stands for Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing. Like the word parallel already says EPIC can do many instruction executions in parallel to one another. EPIC is a created by Intel and is in a way a combination of both CISC and RISC. This will in theory allow the processing of Windows-based as well as UNIX-based applications by the same CPU.

It will not be until 2000 before we can see an EPIC chip. Intel is working on it under code-name Merced. Microsoft is already developing their Win64 standard for it. Like the name says, Merced will be a 64-bit chip. If Intel's EPIC architecture is successful, it might be the biggest thread for RISC. All of the big CPU manufactures but Sun and Motorola are now selling x86-based products, and some are just waiting for Merced to come out (HP, SGI). Because of the x86 market it is not likely that CISC will die soon, but RISC may. So the future might bring EPIC processors and more CISC processors, while the RISC processors are becoming extinct. Conclusion The difference between RISC and CISC chips is getting smaller and smaller. What counts is how fast a chip can execute the instructions it is given and how well it runs existing software. Today, both RISC and CISC manufacturers are doing everything to get an edge on the competition. The future might not bring victory to one of them, but makes both extinct. EPIC might make first RISC obsolete and later CISC too. Written by A.A.Gerritsen for the CPU Site March '99

The simplest way to examine the advantages and disadvantages of RISC architecture is by contrasting it with it's predecessor: CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) architecture. Multiplying Two Numbers in Memory On the right is a diagram representing the storage scheme for a generic computer. The main memory is divided into locations numbered from (row) 1: (column) 1 to (row) 6: (column) 4. The execution unit is responsible for carrying out all computations. However, the execution unit can only operate on data that has been loaded into one of the six registers (A, B, C, D, E, or F). Let's say we want to find the product of two numbers - one stored in location 2:3 and another stored in location 5:2 - and then store the product back in the location 2:3. The CISC Approach The primary goal of CISC architecture is to complete a task in as few lines of assembly as possible. This is achieved by building processor hardware that is capable of understanding and executing a series of operations. For this particular task, a CISC processor would come prepared with a specific instruction (we'll call it "MULT"). When executed, this instruction loads the two values into separate registers, multiplies the operands in the execution unit, and then stores the product in the appropriate register. Thus, the entire task of multiplying two numbers can be completed with one instruction: MULT 2:3, 5:2

MULT is what is known as a "complex instruction." It operates directly on the computer's memory banks and does not require the programmer to explicitly call any loading or storing functions. It closely resembles a command in a higher level language. For instance, if we let "a" represent the value of 2:3 and "b" represent the value of 5:2, then this command is identical to the C statement "a = a * b." One of the primary advantages of this system is that the compiler has to do very little work to translate a high-level language statement into assembly. Because the length of the code is relatively short, very little RAM is required to store instructions. The emphasis is put on building complex instructions directly into the hardware. The RISC Approach RISC processors only use simple instructions that can be executed within one clock cycle. Thus, the "MULT" command described above could be divided into three separate commands: "LOAD," which moves data from the memory bank to a register, "PROD," which finds the product of two operands located within the registers, and "STORE," which moves data from a register to the memory banks. In order to perform the exact series of steps described in the CISC approach, a programmer would need to code four lines of assembly: LOAD A, 2:3 LOAD B, 5:2 PROD A, B STORE 2:3, A At first, this may seem like a much less efficient way of completing the operation. Because there are more lines of code, more RAM is needed to store the assembly level instructions. The compiler must also perform more work to convert a high-level language statement into code of this form. CISC Emphasis on hardware Includes multi-clock complex instructions Memory-to-memory: "LOAD" and "STORE" incorporated in instructions Small code sizes, high cycles per second Transistors used for storing complex instructions However, the RISC strategy also brings some very important advantages. Because each instruction requires only one clock cycle to execute, the entire program will execute in approximately the same amount of time as the multi-cycle "MULT" command. These RISC "reduced instructions" require less transistors of hardware space than the complex instructions, leaving more room for general purpose registers. Because all of the instructions execute in a uniform amount of time (i.e. one clock), pipelining is possible. RISC Emphasis on software Single-clock, reduced instruction only Register to register: "LOAD" and "STORE" are independent instructions Low cycles per second, large code sizes Spends more transistors on memory registers Separating the "LOAD" and "STORE" instructions actually reduces the amount of work that the computer must perform. After a CISC-style "MULT" command is executed, the processor automatically erases the registers. If one of the operands needs to be used for another computation, the processor must re-load the data from the memory bank into a register. In RISC, the operand will remain in the register until another value is loaded in its place.

The Performance Equation The following equation is commonly used for expressing a computer's performance ability:

The CISC approach attempts to minimize the number of instructions per program, sacrificing the number of cycles per instruction. RISC does the opposite, reducing the cycles per instruction at the cost of the number of instructions per program. RISC Roadblocks Despite the advantages of RISC based processing, RISC chips took over a decade to gain a foothold in the commercial world. This was largely due to a lack of software support. Although Apple's Power Macintosh line featured RISC-based chips and Windows NT was RISC compatible, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were designed with CISC processors in mind. Many companies were unwilling to take a chance with the emerging RISC technology. Without commercial interest, processor developers were unable to manufacture RISC chips in large enough volumes to make their price competitive. Another major setback was the presence of Intel. Although their CISC chips were becoming increasingly unwieldy and difficult to develop, Intel had the resources to plow through development and produce powerful processors. Although RISC chips might surpass Intel's efforts in specific areas, the differences were not great enough to persuade buyers to change technologies. The Overall RISC Advantage Today, the Intel x86 is arguable the only chip which retains CISC architecture. This is primarily due to advancements in other areas of computer technology. The price of RAM has decreased dramatically. In 1977, 1MB of DRAM cost about $5,000. By 1994, the same amount of memory cost only $6 (when adjusted for inflation). Compiler technology has also become more sophisticated, so that the RISC use of RAM and emphasis on software has become ideal.