...you know, that reads somewhat like "The Case for Complex Instruction Set Computer". In fact, it straight up demolishes the very first of the core premises of the famous "Case for RISC" paper: that the memory speed has finally caught up with the CPU speed. Nope, it hasn't. The same goes for its "Code Density" argument: nope, code density is very important.
Then again, the original "Case for RISC" paper was misnamed; it's really "Case Against CISC": Patterson and Ditzel are very careful to never state what, exactly, do they mean by "RISC" they're supposedly advocating for, nor do they actually advocate for it — they mostly just criticize the current ISAs and the overall design approach to them.
...you know, that reads somewhat like "The Case for Complex Instruction Set Computer". In fact, it straight up demolishes the very first of the core premises of the famous "Case for RISC" paper: that the memory speed has finally caught up with the CPU speed. Nope, it hasn't. The same goes for its "Code Density" argument: nope, code density is very important.
Then again, the original "Case for RISC" paper was misnamed; it's really "Case Against CISC": Patterson and Ditzel are very careful to never state what, exactly, do they mean by "RISC" they're supposedly advocating for, nor do they actually advocate for it — they mostly just criticize the current ISAs and the overall design approach to them.
For me it reads more like, this is why most 8 and 16 bit home computer games that aimed for top performance were fully written in Assembly.