1. 1 Instruction Sets and Beyond Computers, Complexity, and Controversy Brian Blum, Darren Drewry Ben Hocking, Gus Scheidt

2. 2 Outline Points of Clarification RISC and CISC defined Points of Attention and Contention RISC II and the MCF Evaluation Multiple Register Sets The 432 Summary

3. 3 Points of Clarification 1985 - What is RISC today? RISC – Number of Instructions RISC:academic.vs. CISC:commercial RISC I – 31VAX 11/780 – 303 88000 – 51Intel 80486 - 235 R4000 - 94IBM 370/168 – 208 Pyramid - 90Ridge – 100

4. 4 RISC Defined Single Cycle Operation Load / Store Design Hardwired Control (No microcode) Few Instructions and Addressing Modes Fixed Instruction Format More Compile Time Effort (Split Data and Instruction Cache)

5. 5 CISC in Comparison Larger and more Complex (Insn & Addr) Multiple Cycle Execution (micro-instructions) Upward Compatible (w/ Obsolete Insn) Standardized More Hardware (on-chip logic) Fewer Registers – Unified Cache?

6. 6 RISC and CISC: General Points CISC Built for Language (Assembly) CISC Built for Memory Conservation CISC Focuses on Standards and Compatibility RISC Designed for Speed RISC Simultaneous Access to Code and Operands RISC Reliance on Compilers Worse: or just Different?

7. 7 Two Misconceptions about RISC and CISC Implication that discussion is limited to selection of instruction set. Tradeoffs across various boundaries: architecture / implementation hardware / software compile-time / run-time

8. 8 Two Misconceptions about RISC and CISC Implication that any machine is one or the other. Machine performance difficult to interpret Absolute number of instructions is not the only criterion - compiler / architecture coupling - non-instruction set design decisions

9. 9 Early arguments for RISC Simpler designs could be realized more quickly Avoid performance disadvantages of old implementation technology.

10. 10 DEC’s MicroVAX-32 Qualifies as a CISC Very short development period Standardization of instruction set RISC can benefit from standardization Demonstrates importance of assigning function to appropriate implementation level Microcoding can be a valuable technique

11. 11 Misleading RISC Claims Amount of design time saved. Academic vs. commercial design and production Performance claims. Typical benchmarks avoid metrics of reliability and response time Use of micro-benchmarks vs. large, heterogeneous benchmarks

12. 12 Multiple Register Sets Performance feature independent of RISC aspect of processor Reduce frequency of register saves/restores on procedure calls Overlap register sets for parameter passing MRS impact performance for both RISC and CISC

13. 13 Effect of MRS on CISC Effect of MRS on RISC

14. 14 RISC II and the MCF Evaluation Used by Department of Defense to evaluate life-cycle cost of computers Efficiency defined as: program size; memory bus traffic; canonical processor cycles VAX (CISC) judged best by MCF RISC II evaluation compared to VAX

15. 15 RISC II and the MCF Evaluation Results of comparison VAX requires 3.5 times less memory (for program instructions) RISC II has 2.5 times more processor- memory traffic VAX requires fewer cycles than RISC II

16. 16 A CISC Example – The 432 Object-oriented Geared towards Ada Every object protected uniformly Variable length instructions (6-321 bits) On-chip microcode Every memory reference is checked

17. 17 Problems with the 432 10-20 times as slow on low-level benchmarks (such as Hanoi) No on-chip data caching No instruction stream literals No local registers Ada compile performs almost no optimization

18. 18 Advantages of the 432 Reliability Could be faster at more realistic benchmarks (especially ones that use IPCs)

19. 19 Lessons from the 432 Even with all of the oversights of the 432, it has an important advantage – reliability More realistic benchmarks should be used to compare RISC with CISC CISCs should take advantage of multiple register sets

20. 20 Conclusions When comparing RISC with CISC you should use similar hardware organizations Benefits depend on Types of programs being run Whether requirements are based on Performance Reliability Some other factor or set of factors

21. 21 And now to thank those who made this all possible!