CISC vs RISC.

Apple vs. Oranges: yeah, it's an unfruitful discussion that can go on forever, but we can put terms that are equal for both. For example: which one provide more protein per kg., costs less work or environment impact?

So, CISC and RISC: assume the best is how and what they do.

I think the best example is comparing a F1 car vs. a Rally car... it's all about the kind of road: few big bumps on the road, and the F1 got no chance. On a flat straight road? Now, here's the challenge for a the rally car.

The road we chose, basically set the winner. CISC and RISC follow the same kind of logic: CISC is the heavy stuffed CPU (like a rally one) good for nearly any kind of environment. Basically they always win on scientific calculations and evolution... where no body can predict which " kind of power" there may need in future. To some this is bloat, but in truth CISCS cpu are meant for rapid evolution where you don't know what expect next. Minecraft is one example in the gaming industry: no one expected that future games had to generate worlds from scratch with computation.

RISC are the F1 cars, if you don't change rules all by sudden, you can deliver enormous, yet VERY SIMPLE, processing power: really cheap and quickly... so long you don't plan to build supercomputers to discover new things (supercomputers that make predictable jobs are fine tho)