Re: 6502, 65816 = RISC ?

[drsmooth@baldcom.net (Edhel Iaur)]

wbaguhn@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Will Baguhn) wrote:

>In article <3211B31A.27EC@esis.vsnet.ch>,
>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 reason for that.  It's not that the processor is quicker:
>it's that the programming is better.  Apple was designed by hackers
>trying to get every last smidgen of speed out of the inexpensive hardware
>that they could; the others were designed by IBM who didn't need to
>be fast.  They sold computers based on the logo, not based on what they
>could actually do.

I believe the Apple //c Technical Reference Manual attributed the
65C02's "pipeline construction" to its "about 5" x speed boost.
--
===================================================================
-=37th Wisest Wizard Edhel Iaur=-              -=APPLE // FOREVER=-
GC 3.0: GCS/AT d- s-: a--- C++ U->+++ P L E W+ N++ K- w+@ O? M+@ V?
         PS@ PE Y+@ PGP? t+ 5? X- R+@ tv b++ DI+ D- G e h!>++ r-- y
*For info on the Geek Code(C) v3.12 standards, Netscape yourself to
         http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/geek.html
"My dependable Dell computer never cras
===================================================================