[rwmj]

Neither x86-64 nor RISC-V is implemented by running each single instruction. They both recognize patterns in the code and translate those into micro-ops. On high performance chips like Rivos's (now Meta's) I doubt there'd be any difference in the amount of work done.

Code size is a benefit for x86-64 however - no one is arguing that - but you have to trade that against the difficulty of instruction decoding.

[userbinator]

I thought the main distinction of RISC-V (and MIPS before it, along with RISCs in general) is that the instructions are themselves of equivalent complexity (or lack thereof) as x86 uops. E.g x86 can add a register to memory, which splits into 3 load / add / store uops, but a RISC would execute those 3 instructions directly.

[sitharus]

The main distinction now is RISC-descended designs use a load-modify-store instruction set with all ALU functions being register-register, and consequently have a lot more (visible) registers than CISC-descended ISAs (mostly just x86 really).

Historically RISC instructions were 1:1 with CPU operations, in theory allowing the compiler to better optimise logic, but this isn't really true anymore. High performance ARM CPUs use µOPs and macro-op fusion, though not to the extent of x86 CPUs.

This document from ARM has some details on how they use micro-ops, https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102160/latest

[snvzz]

>Code size is a benefit for x86-64 however

Except it isn't. Code isn't one single pattern repeating again and again; on large enough bodies of code, RISC-V is the most dense, and it's not even close.

[userbinator]

Decades of demoscene productions beg to differ. That just means compilers are awful, as they usually are.[1] x86 has far more optimisation opportunities than any RISC.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15720923

[snvzz]

In absence of better data, we have to compare compiler output.

[userbinator]

Here is your "better data": https://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/ll_documen...

[sitharus]

If I recall my lectures, which were 20odd years ago now.

CISC ISAs were historically designed for humans writing assembly so they have single instructions with complex behaviour and consequently very high instruction density.

RISC was designed to eliminate the complex decoding logic and replace it with compiler logic, using higher throughput from the much reduced decoding logic (or in some cases no decoding at all) to offset the increased number of instructions. Also the transistors that were used for decoding could be used for additional ALUs to increase parallelism.

So RISC by its nature is more verbose.

Does the tradeoff still make sense? Depends who you ask.

[snvzz]

From 2017, it predates RISC-V first ratified spec.

Currently, RISC-V holds the crown of code density in both 64 and 32 bit.

On 32bit, thumb2 is a little behind. On 64bit, x86-64 is not even close, and ARMv8/v9 are even worse.

[userbinator]

You've shown absolutely zero evidence.

"Maybe if I keep repeating it, it'll be true."