Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!carroll From: carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: iWarp Architecture Overview (was: LONG) Message-ID: <4114@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: 13 Jun 91 21:34:49 GMT References: <16586@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> Sender: news@ssc-vax.UUCP Reply-To: carroll@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jeff Carroll) Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics Lines: 38 In article <16586@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> steved@inmos.co.uk (Stephen Doyle) writes: >RISC Processor Unit Shipments (000s) > >Processor 1989 1990 cum. > >transputer 190 240 540 >SPARC 83 185 275 (the other guys' numbers elided - you get the idea) > >So, INMOS are only surviving are we? Looks to me like we are holding the >lead in RISC processor sales. Let's compare apples and apples here. How many of those xputers are T8s? It seems to me that comparing T2s and T4s with SPARCs and i960s and M88xxxs is engaging in creatively wishful thinking. If you want to call the xputer a RISC architecture, fine. But don't pretend that it's competing with the SPARC, the MIPS line, or the i960. The transputer is a niche product. The other semiconductor houses have (until now) been content to leave that niche to Inmos. With increased use of multiprocessor systems on the horizon, however, the other guys will be looking to increase their market share, and some of them have demonstrated better ability to rapidly bring silicon to market than Inmos. Now, I like xputers for what they are, but I'm glad I don't have to program my PC in Occam... -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com "...and of their daughters it is written, 'Cursed be he who lies with any manner of animal.'" - Talmud