Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu!songer
From: songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: RISCy NeXT (was: Low End NeXTs)
Message-ID: <1991Apr3.191131.27175@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 91 19:11:31 GMT
References: <34936@athertn.Atherton.COM> <14575@life.ai.mit.edu> <i11G-iqf1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: root@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (ECN System Management)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 23

melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>
>4 * 15 = 60.  The new low-end HP's that cost $12,000 will do 57 mips.
>I think NeXT would be much better off with a quad-RISC Cube.
>

Well, um, actually...

     Not that I claim to be an expert or anything, but I don't think
you can add the numbers like that. There is a certain inefficiency
in multi-processor systems. Does anyone have an idea of what the
speed ratings might actually be if 4 040's were used in a multi-
processor fashion under NeXT Mach?

     Also, there is alot to be said for one big chip over a bunch of
small ones. Really depends on what you are doing. Certainly multi-
processing is not parallel processsing, (ie, a multi-processing machine
and a single processor machine are going to do a striaght line calculation
in the same time given both machines are unloaded.) I'd like to see a
multi-processing Next, but there are some good points to moving to
one really fast chip.

-Chris