From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 9 18:27:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BB716A41F for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:27:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6442843D45 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:27:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k09IRgcr032349; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:27:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20060108201419.12325.qmail@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060108201419.12325.qmail@web33305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:27:40 -0500 To: danial_thom@yahoo.com From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.2 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:27:45 -0000 At 12:14 PM -0800 1/8/06, Danial Thom wrote: >--- Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > user Opteron/Athlon64 - better than both :) >> > > AMD made RISC-like architecture that just runs i386-like > > code (i386+more registers and few extra instructions, > > while lots of mostly-unused instructions emulated). > >Thats hilarious, a "reduced instruction set" >processor that has extra instructions! Good one! You should think of "RISC" as a "set of reduced instructions", and not a "reduced set of instructions". Even IBM's original RISC had a fairly large *number* of instructions, but fancier do-all instructions were removed in favor of instructions which did less, and thus could always complete in fewer CPU cycles. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu