Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Redesigned Mac Pro is Coming in 2019 (theverge.com)
Apple's long-awaited update to the 2013 Mac Pro won't be released until sometime next year, the company told TechCrunch. From a report: We've known since a press roundtable in April 2017 that Apple was "completely rethinking" the Mac Pro, in the words of marketing chief Phil Schiller. Now, we have confirmation that the product is arriving next year after some speculation that it could make an appearance this year at a fall hardware event typically reserved for MacBook announcements.
"We want to be transparent and communicate openly with our pro community so we want them to know that the Mac Pro is a 2019 product. It's not something for this year," Tom Boger, Apple's senior director of Mac hardware product marketing, told TechCrunch. "In addition to transparency for pro customers on an individual basis, there's also a larger fiscal reasoning behind it."
"We want to be transparent and communicate openly with our pro community so we want them to know that the Mac Pro is a 2019 product. It's not something for this year," Tom Boger, Apple's senior director of Mac hardware product marketing, told TechCrunch. "In addition to transparency for pro customers on an individual basis, there's also a larger fiscal reasoning behind it."
My 2009 2x 6 core Xeon 3.4ghz system is faster than Apple's 2013 tubular 6 core Mac Pro that sells for $3000. Apple won't repair my Mac Pro's heat sensors but I'll be damned if I'll buy a new computer that costs a ton of money and runs slower. So I'm stuck with loud fans for the time being. It's frustrating as hell.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
It will be like they epoxied two mac-minis together.
Take my money please. I can't wait to experience this new Mac.
We want to be transparent and communicate openly with our pro community so we want them to know that the Mac Pro is a 2019 product. It's not something for this year,
Translation: We couldn't be bothered to get off our ass and work on this before now because we make all our money from iPhones these days.
In addition to transparency for pro customers on an individual basis, there's also a larger fiscal reasoning behind it.
If Apple wants to be transparent it might help if they didn't say things that only have meaning if you work at Apple. "Larger fiscal reasoning" could mean almost anything.
"Half as good, twice the price."
Please share your comments.
Well cut off my legs and call me shorty!
What will the boys in Cupertino think of next!
And since it appears that Apple is moving off Intel toward its A-series chips, then this machine will be another dead-end MacPro.
Now might actually be a better time for marketing RISC processors.. since Ghz really isn't as much of a benchmark as it used to be.
Wait, but isn't that because more complex instruction sets...
I mean, it's in the name of the architecture dude...
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
ntr
The funny part is that people who don't know the history of what RISC was actually about* making it possible to jack up the clockspeeds by having stupidly simple instruction sets that only did the bare minimum.
A highly clocked x86 is literally the opposite of what RISC designers actually thought was possible.
* Hint to all fanboys out there: Modern ARM cpus that are actually supposed to be "competitive" with x86 parts like Atoms instead of being used to run your toaster? Yeah, a real designer who actually worked on RISC back in the day would take about 3 seconds to figure out that they ain't really RISC either.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seriously... "Fiscal Reasoning?!?" That's like saying Bill Gates needs to save for a few days to buy himself a Big Mac.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Just take a brushed metal ATX tower and a standard motherboard and call it a Mac Pro. The lie that MacOS needs “special” hardware is making it lose it’s credibility among real professionals who also need more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop.
soldered down, too.
1/4 as good, 4x the price.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
With the external GPU, the use cases for a MacPro really goes away. If you need more raw non-GPU horsepower run on a server and work on a laptop.
cute fluff article, no bench marks. i know that will come in time. but if apple is curious, the 1 terabyte ram, 16+ petabytes for hard drive(s) would be useful for development work.
I own two Macbook Pros for mobile work, but for desktop work I rely on a self-built that runs MacOS and actually has the hardware that I need in it. Too bad Apple won't sell me one, I'd buy it instead and not have to worry about dealing with the vagaries and annoyances of maintaining my own white box hardware.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I doubt they could do much better than simply going back to the 2012 cheesegrater hardware, with a new motherboard that offers the same expansion capabilities but newer, faster/more CPU and RAM and so forth. Pluggable gfx cards, hard drives, absolutely no non-replaceable flash storage, optical drives, lots of standard USB I/O, ethernet, optical and analog audio, etc.
I also highly doubt they'll do it. They'll almost certainly just screw up again. Look at the mini and so on; just one more screwup after another last few iterations. There's no sign of sanity over there at all. And the iMac "Pro" is outright ridiculous.
That's okay, though. The cheesegraters will probably last for many years yet. I feel no burning need to give them money for yet another design fail.
OTOH, I'd be happy to give them money if they actually improved the mac pro beyond the cheesegrater. Or went back to the cheesegrater. Or actually improved the mini beyond its peak (which is not the current mini.) Or put out a decent mid-tower.
But again... breath-holding is not called for here. The evidence shows they're thoroughly lost in stupidland.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
for facebook, twitter and the rest. special for all the 'pro' bloggers out there.
(has no expandale graphics though...)
For Apple to regain it's reliability, everything is going to have run on the same base, which means that Macs are going to have to derive from the same hardware as iPhone. Hopefully we won't take a step back in software features or lose more products, as we did with Aperture.
Apple transition about every 10 years, when the chipset can no longer be innovated to meet the needs of the end user. Apple can radically change the machine because they don't support infinite backwards capability, It is one of the advantages of using their products.
As far as fiscal needs, I hope they mean sales and they are not going to design a machine that sells only tens of thousands of units. They have cash so they can create a machine that will ultimately break even, but I think they are looking at a wider audience. The iMac Pro actually would be a good machine, if it had a touch screen. For the pro user I don't think the all in one is appropriate.,
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'm gonna love keeping my DB in the machine again!
If the remaining good older/affordable apple hardware dies, this is my prediction
"Server"
xserve -> mac pro -> mac mini -> linux pc
Photo/Video content creators
mac pro -> mac pro -> imac/pc
"home users"
imac -> imac -> mac book air -> ipad
students
macbook air -> ipad/chrome book
programmers/mobile content creators
mackbook pro -> macbook pro -> macbook air like macbook
Iphone users
iphone -> iphone -> iphone
iPod touch users
ipod -> iphone
Apple used to have software manufacturers pushing/backing their platform. When it comes to general purpose computing, who's still doing that? Adobe? nah.. Microsoft? please... Avid? you're better off on HP. Autodesk? no. What do mac users do now that needs compute power? Dual boot windows and write on Slashdot blogs...
IMHO Apple needs to step up their game in the PC market, become cost competitive to bring up their user base, or abandon it.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
First step, find a prominent RISC platform that doesn't just have RISC in the name for historical reasons. At this point, everything with any performance is CISC (whether by the inaccurate concept of count of available instructions, or in terms of how many instructions per memory cycle as was the original intent).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I predict a 12-core A12 based Mac Pro. Why else would it take so long to release?
A highly clocked x86 is literally the opposite of what RISC designers actually thought was possible.
I thought CISC processors were essentially RISC processors, using microcode to execute the complex statement.
Your RISC/CISC processor isn't really what people used to call "RISC".
(And neither are modern ARM processors, they've gone over to the dark side in order to compete with CISC on performance...)
No sig today...
The way they've been neglecting the Mac for years, you'd expect all their pro users to have jumped ship. But then again, the alternatives are all flawed.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Internally, sure. They still expose a complex ISA like AMD64 and ultimately implement it. But the black box you buy is CISC.
Next Article: Tech people get enraged over the pettiest things.
Pro Tip: If you don't like the Mac Pro don't buy the Mac Pro. Don't whine about every little design decision they made because it didn't cater to your specific fetish. Nobody cares.
They will Solder the Mouse and Keyboard in directly.
Too prevent counterfeit Mice and Keyboards, or something.
This will be called 'Courage".
That doesn't make any sense. Apple has one of the (or is it "the") biggest cash reserves of any public company in history. They can buy Dell with pocket change.
Exactly my point. The only reason to not update the Mac Pro is because either (A) it isn't profitable or (B) your attention is elsewhere or (C) gross incompetence. Funding the project is obviously not a problem for Apple so it's something of a mystery why they only can be bothered to update the Mac desktop lines once per presidential term. My guess is that management attention is largely on the iPhone and iOS and the Mac gets the sloppy seconds.
To me, the only thing that makes any sense is that it has something to do with taxes and a 2019 deadline of some sort. (That or they want to build a factory in a tax-favored location, and it won't be complete until 2019).
Might be a factor but taxes really aren't as big a consideration as most people think for these sorts of capital projects. Taxes can impact profitability but the project still has to be profitable for the taxes to play any role at all. So even at Apple's ~25% net profit margins taxes would at worst lower their net profit margin to 20%. A problem but nothing that should keep them from making the investment.
I recently read this article which gives an excellent historical perspective on ISAs, RISC, CISC, VLIW, etc. To me, it also shows why very long upgrade cycles (like 2013->2019 in this case) might make quite a bit of sense now a days. We may be heading to a period of expensive, long-lived machines. Interesting times.
See History of Computer Architecture and RISC (slides) by Dave Patterson.
Modern x86 chips are RISC processors, with an ugly compatibility layer on top which does have a cost. True, a number of processors that are ostensibly RISC (like ARM and PPC) do have many complex instructions and addressing modes, but the RISC ideal is alive and well with RISC-V. It is the best in class of conventional architecture, incorporating decades of wisdom. It offers a number of compelling advantages, and provides a solid and open foundation for future innovation.
There are a huge number of talks/slides available under workshop proceedings, for those with further interest.
Apple, come on! Just give us a tower with good cooling and standard expansion slots. That's what the pros want. This shouldn't take long to design, even if you want to make it all shiny.
If you can't handle designing a tower anymore, just give us a "blessed" motherboard that we can assemble our own computer out of. No support, etc. For pros only.
What's a computer?
AMD EPYC gen 2 system?
But smaller, with datacenter specs, so lots of 2.5" SAS drives, no optical, lots of GFX cards, with datacenter sizes (half height, half length, 2 slots).
Put a couple Cavium (Marvell) ThunderX2 chips inside (instead of intel) so that you start the transition to ARM in earnest, and with a Bang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If is Good enough for a FUCKING CRAY XC50 SUPERCOMPUTES, shall be good enough for Mac "Pro" users.
For the tiem being, leave the Apple designed ARM stuff for low end laptops.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Tom Boger, Apple’s senior director of Mac hardware product marketing, told TechCrunch. “In addition to transparency for pro customers on an individual basis, there’s also a larger fiscal reasoning behind it...We know that there’s a lot of customers today that are making purchase decisions on the iMac Pro and whether or not they should wait for the Mac Pro..."
Sounds to me like they want to force people waiting on the sidelines to consider the shitty iMac Pro or the even shittier 2013 Trashcan.
there's also a larger fiscal reasoning behind it.
It will be an additional $500 more expensive and the case will be sealed shut to absolutely prevent anyone from even attempting to see if any part can be pried off the motherboard to be replaced.
If something goes bad, oh well. You'll have to buy another one. That's the fiscal reasoning behind the delay.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Looks like the POWER8 is RISC based https://www.ibm.com/developerw...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Updated 2006 mac pro
New mobo ( single or dual cpu )
Lot of ram banks
modular psu so that one can feed the gpu directly ( and not through the mobo )
So the Mac Pro is going to go 6 years without a refresh?
Yes, Apple very clearly cares about professional users.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Modern x86 is nothing more than an x86 translation layer around a RISC chip, any way. We're already all using RISC processors, so there's not a whole lot to be gained by "switching" to them. Not in terms or performance and security, at least.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Amen!
This is why I chose Android way back when and why I am sticking to some older Android phones... they got all this.. are plenty fast and have other great stuff like IR + stylus + removable batteries (2014 note 4), physical keyboard (2015 bb priv) etc
And of course the famous and much needed mini jack
Care to point some out?
Actually *all* modern architectures are RISC ... CISC no longer exists, except as "compatibly mode" for x86.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A microcoded monstrosity isn't necessary to compete with CISC. RISC-V is a genuine RISC design, with a simple compressed encoding that bests both ARM and x86 on 32 and 64 bit code density, while also enabling high performance implementations with macro-op fusion. The minimal design and lack of condition codes also make it more friendly for Out of Order, and enable exceedingly good performance, area and power efficiency. (Beyond even ARM; see numbers in slides.) The entire instruction set and common extensions fit on a single slide.
Learn to use
and try remembering your password.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Apple likes to go on these idea-driven engineering exercises. The result is invariably stylish, interesting, and deeply flawed. But Apple has to justify the premium price and lack of choices somehow and this is part of that equation.
I predict that legions of Apple fans will suck in air and rationalize. "I want 64 GB RAM but Apple says I only need 32 GB, so 32 GB it is!"
Many other high end users have noticed the problem, decided they are not well-served by Apple at this time and have moved on. However many of those people have a sense of personal betrayal. "I was a Mac! Why have you left me for those iPhone hussies!? You bastard!!"
The current iMac Pro can be configured with 18 cores. The current Mac Pro maxes out at 8. This is the market segment of workstation towers which are supposed to be easy to upgrade/maintain and they haven't refreshed the product (ignoring the fact the trash can design is terrible for servicing).
What is exposed to the application layer... massive opcode space, multiple modes, deep pipelining, reliance on both compiler and on-die logic...
this is not "RISC" in the original sense.
add segment_register:[disp + r32_A + r32_B*n], r32_C
That's no-one's idea of a classic RISC instruction.
And even though this gets decoded into micro-ops, the complex address generation is computed only once, and the memory order checks take advantage of this having been a single, fused instruction, so the semantic nuances are carried deep through the OOO pipeline.
There's so much crap on the Internet about RISC, it blows my mind.
50% of the RISC hype was about being able to compete against the legacy vendors with smaller, cheaper design teams.
You can call x86 RISC, but it never got cheaper to design. The cost of the design is almost a superset of its CISC and RISC elements (I'm pretty sure its hybrid nature creates headaches above and beyond the sum of its parts).
The RISC hype bubble had some validity for roughly a five-year period before Intel launched the Pentium Pro in 1995 (RISC hype persisted outside the clue nucleus for another five years after that for largely political reasons). The Pentium Pro is where the complexity of the CPU core and the complexity of the memory subsystem (and latency hiding) began to cross over. There is no possible way to design a processor with a deep, concurrent queue of in-flight cache and memory transactions (with SMP coherence), and extensive latency hiding in the execution engine using a small design team.
Wikipedia's article on the Pentium Pro makes it sounds like its performance sucked, but it held up amazingly well on mixed Windows NT server workloads compared to any RISC architecture at anywhere near the price (it's deep OOO latency-hiding was a huge boon to memory thrashing compared to in-order RISC with wider dispatch.)
Wide dispatch = straight line speed (American car).
OOO latency absorbers = cornering speed (German car).
Of course, most benchmarks are biased to the salt-flat quarter mile.
Another thing, the majority of CISC junk-in-the-trunk (e.g. 286 call gates) is subject to exponential shrinkage; barely a third decimal point by the time you reach a billion transistors.
On the matter of superscalar execution, this naturally prioritizes the quick and the fleeting (only these instructions could pair up in the P5). Superscalar under OOO is a different beast: now the killer dimension becomes instruction flight time. This for the macro-ops at the level of the retirement order buffer, the micro-ops at the level of the dispatch buffer, and the outstanding memory operations at the level of the memory order buffer.
Intel's x86 architecture is more HISC than RISC: Hasty Instruction Set Computing. The faster you retire the operations (at any level), the sooner you free up precious reservation buffers. (x86 never inched one step closer to a conventional load/store architecture, the cardinal 'R' in RISC; most especially, transient addresses off the stack frame do not retire to the register model in x86—what a waste of reservation stations—because they are never register-assigned in the first place.)
Micro-operation
If some traditional RISC architecture adds macro-op fusion to its internal implementation, do I get to declare that "modern MIPS is nothing more than a MIPS translation layer around a CISC chip, anyway"?
Since the early 1990s, this debate has been my #1 personal case study in technological propaganda, herd following, and revisionist misinformation.
I originally got onto this file asking myself a hard question: just who is this messianic charlatan named Steve Jobs?
I thought this was "News For Nerds", not "Press releases for Pretentious Pricks".
The issue being that RISC was a technical feature that became a marketing bullet point. As the original bet of RISC architecture was lost (that complex hardware could not scale up, and that compiler optimization would close the gap of CISC), surviving high performance "RISC" families started embracing instruction set extensions to include multi-cycle instructions.
However, marketing material continued to beat the old dead horse of how RISC was better, despite their own designs seemingly saying otherwise.
RISC v. CISC deteriorated from a technical discussion to a sports team sort of affair. The reality is far more nuanced than that nowadays, and the strategic differnece was eroding a lot in the mid 90s and has gone away by now.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Well, pretty much all modern SIMD instructions are not RISC.
For specifics, here's an ARM document about instructions in the pipeline and how many cycles the different instructions are:
http://infocenter.arm.com/help...
RISC was supposed to be that any given instruction was simplistic and would use no more than a single cycle, and that the processing units would be utterly generic. Now we have something of a hybrid of that philosophy and CISC philosophy, with people 'rooting' for the relatively meaningless 'CISC v RISC' designations as they would their favored sports team.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Whatever the revamped Mac Pro will be you can guarantee that it will still be massively overpriced (more so than Apple's usual pricing) and won't go anywhere near having the upgradeability that one would usually expect from a "pro" machine.
No, since the Pentium Pro in 1995, which already employed microcode translation; not with the Pentium IV, which was deliberately brain damaged to win the MHz war (I don't even know how to classify the trace cache, except ungodly hot); again with the Core Duo, after that (god bless Israel).
How Israel saved Intel
What you are calling a RISC core has more proprietary CISC-world abstraction violations than you could shake a stick at (these are primarily performance hacks, but nonetheless).
Explain to me why micro-op fission gets more air time in your lexicon than macro-op fusion? Because modern x86 processors use both tricks to obtain a working representation which minimizes in-flight resource consumption (which is similar to RISC, but is not directly motivated by either "simple" or "reduced"—hasty is a better proxy—and none of this is reflected in the instruction set, as is patently obvious). And even then, the micro-op fission remains semantically distinct from an actual RISC instruction stream deep into the pipeline in small yet critical details (internal modern x86 micro-ops are fuzzy creatures, but these implementation tricks aren't publicly documented).
There's actually a more basic level underneath RISC: readers and writers attached to separate busses. But this is so low level is tends to make your ISA non-portable to the next iteration, so no-one sane goes here (I'm looking at you, Itanium, even though after you started here, you went another 100 miles downstream).
write_assert rA to register_bus_1
read rB from register bus_1
read rC from register bus_1
write_deassert rA to register_bus_1
Register files tend to be multiple ported, so there would be other register busses available concurrently. That's all one clock cycle if your macro-op fusion puts Humpty back together again (and not analogous to any RISC instruction).
mov ebx, eax
mov ecx, eax
In a transport triggered architecture-like world, these two instructions could be fused into a single assertion of eax, and a simultaneous read by register file ebx and register file ecx off the same bus.
But you'd still call it a RISC core, wouldn't you, so long as the internal representation was granulated into some kind of small, vaguely uniform ops? (Macro or micro, who cares?)
Between 1985 and 1995, I must have read many dozen articles in computer magazines about how x86 CISC could never grow up to compete against the Big Boys (where RISC was the prototypical Big Boy). This was a potent brew of aesthetic disgust (with which I largely concurred), competitive ambition, and mentally defective bullshit—as history now records. In order to advance this kind of claim in a falsifiable way, RISC has to actually mean something.
Back when I wrote a fair amount of 486 code, I mainly worked in a RISC subset (most of which dated back to the 8086 or were simple extensions), heavily augmented with non-RISC ModR/M sib addressing modes. There was no OOO, so there was no need for an intermediate micro-op representation: the complex read/modify/write instruction were decomposed into RISC primitives (load,operation,store) by an execution-engine state machine (which I suppose you could call a micro-op sequencer on the understanding that the machine supported exactly one in-flight macro-op. A non-distinction without a difference?) Compared to 386, 486 felt a bit RISCy because many of your core operations had a single-cycle execution time (and you tended to ignore program fetch delays, because of the concurrent internal i-cache).
Once you get into OOO, you need track multiple i
Apple, come on! Just give us a tower with good cooling and standard expansion slots
Congrats, you can by one today. It's called the iMac Pro. It has amazing cooling and really quiet fans.
For the nostalgic that still need "standard expansion slots", just get an external chassis for that connected via thunderbolt 3. You could wind up with way more slots than any PC if you so desired.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The way they've been neglecting the Mac for years, you'd expect all their pro users to have jumped ship.
Not after the iMac Pro. That is a seriously good system and really takes the pressure off Apple to deliver a Mac Pro, which is why they are pushing back the schedule to make it better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Amfeltec is now selling a internal SSD expander card so you can triple the number of M.2 SSD cards on the internal bus.
http://amfeltec.com/products/mac-pro-late-2013-carrier-board-for-m-2-pcie-ssd-modules/
This will tide you over until 2019 (if not later)
Sorry, SIMD is obviously not RICS, and obviously a SIMD instruction needs more time than a single scalar instruction. ...
That has nothing to do with RISC versus CISC.
All modern microcomputer CPUs except Intel x86 are RISC CPUs, there is no single CISC left. And x86 is internal RISC, they translate the incoming CISC instructions into RISC instructions before executing.
Yes, 'one' idea behind RISC was that an instruction can be executed in one cycle, but obviously that never was true, you can not do a multiply or divide in one cycle
But you can have SIMD/vector pipelines that eat two or three operands per cycle and spit out one result (or two) per cycle: and that has nothing to do with CISCC versus RISC.
Read a book about it, that helps.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Iâ(TM)ve been using my MacBook Pro since 2011 (17â version) and I still love it, love it so much my next machine may not be a MacBook Pro because they are just dinosaurs, the iPad Proâ(TM)s are better feature wise.. itâ(TM)s a real shame. If they brought out a version that allowed for external RAM and M.2 drive as well as Ethernet, USB and USB-C with a touch/tablet ability like the surefacebook then maybe Iâ(TM)d upgrade to another MacBook, for now I just hope my 2011 model (custom 16gb ram, 2 500GB ssd drives) survives long enough to see something worth upgrading to...
Modern ARM cpus that are actually supposed to be "competitive" with x86 parts like Atoms
Modern ARM cpus overtook Atom some time ago and are closing in on Intel's Core architecture. These are highly superscalar, unlike Atom, which continues to disappoint. E.g. Cortex A75 can issue 8 micro-ops per cycle. These are now being evaluated realistically as server chips. Not quite there yet in per-core throughput but arguably ahead in core count. Only low end ARMs should be compared to Atom these days. Increasingly, Intel's performance edge will just be the FPU. In time that will go away too, just as it did with AMD.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Your RISC/CISC processor isn't really what people used to call "RISC".
(And neither are modern ARM processors, they've gone over to the dark side in order to compete with CISC on performance...)
Bah. In the old days one way to certainly tell that you had a CISC chip was if it had a fucking processor inside that ran microcode to implement the ISA it presented to the outside. Now asshats like you come riding in trying to pretend that the very thing that makes Intel's CPU a CISC machine "proves they are actually RISC". Fuck you.
Modern x86 is nothing more than an x86 translation layer around a RISC chip, any way. We're already all using RISC processors, so there's not a whole lot to be gained by "switching" to them. Not in terms or performance and security, at least.
You just described the best way to identify an CISC CPU -it having micro-ops- as it being RISC. You are a true idiot.