[rc5] Re: Supercomputers & Bovine, Q&A

Kevyn Shortell kevyn at ricochet.net
Mon Aug 4 18:17:43 EDT 1997

Well see, what your all forgetting, is that the X86's also have hardware
rotate..... so of course you'd see it outperforming alpha's, which don't

However, you don't see X86 with hardware rotate, out performing PPC with
hardware rotate, so saying that, RISC is faster than CISC, is not in itself
a wrong thing to say.

In this case, it's quite obvious, that it is =)

At 4:29 PM -0700 8/4/97, Murray Stokely wrote:
>% Naanaanaano, you take the whole thing to easy. You can't just claim that
>% is faster then cisc, you can only say that it is different (if you consider
>% a problem where the cisc'er can play their card of complex instructions they
>% are of course in advantage). But speaking about the performance of the 604e:
>% The PowerPC-architecture includes a hardware rotate-instruction
>("rlwimi" and
>% "rlwinm"; the mnemonics sound stupid but these instructions are very
>% and they don't need to "shift left","shift right" and "or" as other risc-
>% machines.
>% I think it has been mentioned very often in this mailing list, that x86,
>% PC and 68K are good architectures for RC5-encryption because they
>support hard-
>% ware rotates ...
>It probably would have been easier to point out that his entire
>argument that RISC is better was pointless especially in this
>context.  CISC machines such as x86's are outperforming RISC machines
>such as alphas that run at over twice the clockspeed.
>Murray Stokely
>To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5'
>in the body.

Kevyn Shortell       |
kevyn at valuserve.com  |  BABYLON 5: Our Last Best Hope For Televised SciFi.
                     |              Sheridan/Zathras in '97

To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list