> It would be very interesting, since the point of RISC is to > get rid of the > expensive control logic that microcode requires.
Umm, no. It's to get rid of the control logic that CISC requires. Microcode does not necessarily imply CISC (although it's a common way of implementing it). Focusing the core on executing the microinstructions would need a control store and the logistics to read and update it, but the chip logic still looks pretty simple at that point compared to a true CISC like the Vax or the Pentium. > I have to wonder what the point of doing that would be. I > think the reason > that IBM wants to move the mainframe to the Power is so they > can get rid of > things like microcode. Microcode is high maintenance. Maintaining multiple depots with multiple versions of physical spares is even more expensive. If you can streamline to two assembly lines (Intel and non-Intel), and consolidate maintenance and spares, that's the real money in the idea.
