Difference Between Risc And Cisc

The primary difference between RISC and CISC is that RISC processors use a smaller and simpler instruction set, leading to faster instruction execution times, while CISC processors use a larger and more complex instruction set, allowing for more powerful instructions to be executed in a single clock cycle.

Difference Between Risc And Cisc

Computer architecture has evolved rapidly over the years, and two of the most prevalent types of computer architecture are RISC and CISC. RISC and CISC stand for Reduced Instruction Set Computing and Complex Instruction Set Computing, respectively. The primary difference between RISC and CISC lies in the computer instruction set they use. In this article, we will delve into the differences between the two architectures, their strengths and weaknesses, and their applications.

Instruction Set Architecture

An Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) defines the set of instructions that a computer's central processing unit (CPU) can execute. Different computer architectures utilize different ISAs. ISAs can be grouped into two broad categories: Reduced Instruction Set Computing and Complex Instruction Set Computing.

RISC Architecture

RISC, or Reduced Instruction Set Computing, is a computer architecture that uses a smaller, simpler set of instructions than that of CISC. RISC processors simplify the instruction sets with fewer instructions, resulting in faster, more efficient instruction execution times. With a small instruction set, the processor can execute a larger number of instructions per second.

RISC instruction sets are designed to use only the basic and most essential instructions, which the CPU can execute quickly. RISC processors have small instruction sets, few addressing modes, and a small number of data types. This simplicity of design makes RISC processors faster at executing code, as there are fewer steps to carry out each instruction.

CISC Architecture

CISC, or Complex Instruction Set Computing, is a computer architecture that uses a wide range of complex instructions. These instructions can vary in length and complexity, and each instruction can execute a complex set of operations. Rather than relying on simple instructions, as RISC processors do, CISC processors typically use a large number of complex instructions to execute a specific function.

CISC instruction sets are designed for greater functionality by including many powerful instructions that can execute multiple functions or operate on more than one data type, memory location, or register at a time. This complexity of design means that the CPU can execute more instructions per cycle, making CISC processors faster at executing long code sequences or calculations that require multiple steps.

Key Differences Between RISC and CISC

Now that we understand what RISC and CISC are, let's look at their key differences:

Instruction Size: RISC processors use a small instruction size (generally 32-bit), while CISC processors use larger instruction sets, typically 128-bit or greater.

Instruction Set: RISC processors have a smaller instruction set, while CISC processors have a larger and more complex instruction set.

Pipelining: RISC architectures tend to be more pipeline friendly, allowing for more instructions to be executed simultaneously. CISC architectures tend to have longer pipeline times, which complicate pipeline design.

Memory Access: RISC processors access memory more frequently, while CISC processors have a larger cache of memory, reducing the number of memory accesses.

Instruction Execution: RISC processors execute instructions faster because of their small instruction set, while CISC processors can execute complex instructions in a single clock cycle.

Pros and Cons of RISC and CISC

Both RISC and CISC have their strengths and weaknesses. RISC processors tend to be faster and have a simpler design. CISC processors tend to be more powerful and capable of executing more complex instructions.

Pros of RISC:

Simpler instruction set, which leads to faster instruction execution times.

Reduced hardware complexity, which leads to smaller and cheaper processors.

Easier for compilers to optimize code for RISC architectures.

Efficient use of memory and fewer memory accesses.

Cons of RISC:

Design complexity: when designing a RISC processor, complexity occurs in multiple-stage pipelining, which requires complex optimization techniques.

Some instructions require a larger number of machine cycles to execute.

Pros of CISC:

More powerful, as they have a larger number of instructions that can perform a variety of functions.

Fewer lines of code required for programming

Easy to use for assembly language programming.

Reduced overhead due to fewer instruction cycles required for an instruction.

Cons of CISC:

More challenging to design and implement

Difficult to optimize machine code, making it harder to achieve top performance

Limited in design due to the large instruction set, thus leading to larger more expensive processors

Examples of RISC and CISC Processors

Examples of RISC processors include the ARM, MIPS, and PowerPC. ARM processors are commonly used in cellular phones due to their low power requirements, while the MIPS architecture is used in embedded systems and supercomputers. PowerPC processors are used in numerous applications, including the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 gaming consoles.

Examples of CISC processors include the x86 architecture used by Intel and AMD, and the Motorola 68000 used in Apple Macintosh computers.


In summary, RISC and CISC represent two different approaches to computer architecture, with each offering its unique strengths and weaknesses. RISC architecture is characterized by a small instruction set, reduced hardware complexity, and improved memory usage, leading to faster execution times. CISC architecture, on the other hand, is characterized by a more extensive range of instructions that can perform a variety of functions, and easier to use for assembly language programming. As technology continues to evolve, both RISC and CISC architectures are likely to remain relevant, with each being used in different applications.