[StilesCrisis]

CISC only survived because CPUs now dedicate a ton of silicon to decoding the CISC stream into RISC-y microcode. RISC CPUs can avoid this completely, but it turns out backwards compatibility was important to the market and the transistor cost of "instruction decode" just adds like +1 pipeline depth or something.

[ndiddy]

> CISC only survived because CPUs now dedicate a ton of silicon to decoding the CISC stream into RISC-y microcode.

For Intel CPUs, this was somewhat true starting from the Pentium Pro (1995). The Pentium M (2004) introduced a technique called "micro-op fusion" that would bind multiple micro-ops together so you'd get combined micro-ops for things like "add a value from memory to a register". From that point onward, the Intel micro-ops got less and less RISCy until by Sandy Bridge (2011) they pretty much stopped resembling a RISC instruction set altogether. Other x86 implementations like K7/K8/K10 and Zen never had micro-ops that resembled RISC instructions.

[zephen]

> CPUs now dedicate a ton of silicon to decoding the CISC stream into RISC-y microcode.

In absolute terms, this is true. But in relative terms, you're talking less than 1% of the die area on a modern, heavily cached, heavily speculative, heavily predictive CPU.

[FartyMcFarter]

Didn't there use to be a joke about Intel being the biggest RAM manufacturer (given the amount of physical space caches take on a CPU)?

[zephen]

I hadn't heard that, but certainly, there must have been many times when Intel held the crown of "biggest working hunk of silicon area devoted to RAM."