So what benifits are you going to have in using CISC over RISC?
Smaller code sizes I guess, at the the expense of complexity.
I'm thinking for a GPU wider is going to be better than deeper. With
FPGAs were are going to be limited by the clock. Why make it worse by
going to CISC that relys on higher clock speeds? Why not make a simple
core so that we can pack 16-24 of them in one FPGA instead of one that
will take up half the CPU?
Timothy
On 4/14/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> >> If you want a shader-centric GPU, you want CISC with (a) special-purpose
> >> floating point and (b) vectorized instructions...
> >
> > To this I ask why? Aren't GPUs vectorized RISCs?
>
> The ones I'm familiar with are, yes, but I think you can do better with
> CISC.
>
> Now that OpenGL is largely GLSL ("C for graphics"), there is a -lot- of
> room for optimization and improvement there.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
