Could you elaborate on what exactly was so insane about the the Netburst microarchitecture?
And there are so many registers, its often possible to put whole algorithms into registers instead of stack or memory. I wonder if the age of the 'stack' should come to an end?
My immediate thought when I saw the title was: "hey that is a CISC CPU, right?". I only get the chance to have the CISC/RISC dialogue once every couple of years. Most IT folks don't bother with chatting about CPU architecture any more. These were some fun discussions to have back in the day. With the price and speed that CPUs have nowadays these discussions feel redundant.
The actual instruction set design is much less (but still) important these days. There aren't many "pure" RISC designs left because the universal demand for accelerated encryption, decompression, vectorization etc outweigh the ideological need for a pure design.
IMHO what's more relevant today is having an instruction set that compilers can fully exploit, rather than having an instruction set that's optimized for human understanding. In other words, it's no longer a decision between complex and simple.
True, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e., the compilers). Internally, most CISC machines nowadays are essentially RISC machines with a CISC-to-microcode translator, so you could also say that there aren't many "pure" CISCs left either :)
Keybase in profile, but lmk of a different medium would be more palatable.