Re: 6502, 65816 = RISC ?

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <4uuln8$ksc@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
Tilghman Lesher <lesherjt@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>Gilles Tschopp (gilles.tschopp@esis.vsnet.ch) wrote:
>: For me, I consider the 6502 (and 65816) as RISC and not CISC. 
>: The RISC is only a philosophy and not a technical way of 
>: manufacturing CPU. I still have my Apple IIc and I always feel 
>: that the 6502 is quicker than the 8086-4.77 (and even the 
>: 8086-9.54 from my old Toshiba portable), and is comparable with 
>: a 286-8 or 10.

>There's a difference between how Apple and IBM rated their processors.
>The difference is basically a factor of 4:  A 4 MHz IBM chip is roughly
>equivalent to a 1 MHz 6502.

   I already posted why this is true for 8086, 8088, 80286, but
by the time of the 80486, the average instruction (except for the
oddball ones left over from the 8086) took 1 clock cycle to execute,
faster than the 6502's 2 clock cycle minimum.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein