Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!Firewall!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!athene!pcg From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: iWarp Architecture Overview (was: LONG) Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 17:37:24 GMT References: <1991Jun3.172230.6901@iWarp.intel.com> <2622@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <4077@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <16586@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 33 On 13 Jun 91 09:37:51 GMT, steved@lion.inmos.co.uk (Stephen Doyle) said: steved> Quoting from the RISC Management Newsletter 1/1/91 steved> RISC Processor Unit Shipments (000s) steved> Processor 1989 1990 cum. steved> transputer 190 240 540 steved> [ ... smaller figures for SPARC, Rx000, Am29K, ix60, ARM, M88K, steved> CLIPPER omitted ... ] Frankly, this newletter is crazy. The Transputer is not by any stretch of the imagination a RISC system (unless you define RISC == non CISC), and it is not, even more importantly, a general purpose CPU like the other systems listed. To put it into that league table is ridiculous. On the other hand the figures confirm that the ARM is deservedly one of the more popular RISC designs, and this is about as good for the prestige of the UK design companies as anything. The transputer *is* a success story, but not as a general purpose processor, just as an high end embedded systems engine. In that market it is not by any means the leader, but it is still significant. So maybe it would be more interesting to see the figures for sales of CPUs in the 32 bit embedded systems market, and to see it split between CISC sales (32k, 68k, x86) and non-CISC (which is not by any means the same as RISC) sales. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk