If your talking pure clock cycles, the 450MHz is 250MHz faster that 200MHz...
;-)

Seriously, RISC or Reduced Instruction Set Computer has fewer core instructions.
CISC or Complex Instruction Set Computer has all kinds of instructions built
into the processor that can be used by software applications (think MMX, SSE,
etc.). The theory behind RISC is that it has fewer instructions, but those
instructions are simple and thus run really fast. They are also cheaper to
manufacture because they have fewer transistors in them. With fewer built-in
instructions, RISC chips put more burden on the software. So when you say which
is faster, it all depends on the software and how it's been compiled. So if you
have an application that has been optimized to use the built-in instructions of
a CISC processor and run it against an application that was compiled on a RISC
system, I couldn't tell you which would be faster, you would have to benchmark
it. On simple instructions I think the RISC processor would win out even if the
CISC processor is executing instructions 2.25 times as fast. However, how many
simple RISC instructions does it take to do one of the built-in special
instructions on a CISC? There are arguments for both sides, but I hear the point
is becoming moot. Since many of today's RISC chips are using the instructions of
yesterday's CISC chips, and many CISC chips are using techniques formally
associated with RISC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kclug@marauder.illiana.net
> [mailto:owner-kclug@marauder.illiana.net]On Behalf Of Andrew Bates
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:27 PM
> To: kclug@kclug.org
> Subject: RISC 200 vs CISC 450?
>
>
> Which ones is faster?  a Pentium III 450 or a RISC 200?  (A desktop
> versus a Colbalt RaQ2)
>
> - Andrew
>
>
>