Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Outside influences on Chip Design (Re: What RISC is REALLY all about!
Message-ID: <260@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jul-86 13:56:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.260
Posted: Fri Jul 25 13:56:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 21:59:20 EDT
References: <475@elmgate.UUCP> <789@petsd.UUCP> <481@elmgate.UUCP> <136@mipos3.UUCP> <496@elmgate.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 48
Summary: Motorola Evolution.

In article <496@elmgate.UUCP> jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes:
>In article <136@mipos3.UUCP>, kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~) writes:
>> And my last word, my firm belief is that any processor designed without
>> any (or a very small) consideration to either the software that the
>> thing is going to run, OR the hardware implementation that is required
>> to execute the instructions is doomed to failure.  And this includes
>> processors that are designed by compiler writers living in a vacuum.
>> -- 
>> The above views are personal.
>> Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
>
>First a tongue-in-cheek remark to Ken on the above paragraph:
>Where the heck were you when they were designing the 8088/86/186/286, hmmm?
>
>Second a completely different topic:
>Ken, with the success of the PC's, how much outside influence (if any) did
>certain large(!) computer makers have on the design of the 386?
>
>To everyone:
>Does anyone know of a successful or failed CPU design that was
>significantly changed or built from scratch, because of outside influence?

According to the folklore:
Motorola, in designing both the 6809 and the 68000, surveyed many of it's
own customers, AND non-customers before proceeding with designs for their
"next generation" chips.

Intel seems to have focused more on the "system" as a whole, by adding
the DMA, interrupt controller, etc. on chip.  Ironically, Phillips is
following the "system on a chip" lead, but with the 68K instruction
set.

Except for really "innovative" (like Berkely RISC) designs,  I would
guess that most commercial manufacturers do some heavy market research
before they "commit to silicon".

Hopefully, chip makers will broaden their scope of market research a little
more, and combine the best of "system on a chip" with "compiler/programmer
friendliness".

To be fair to Intel, 1 meg was an enormous memory map compared to the 64K
predecessors.  16bit registers were also quite attractive compared to a
6502, 8080, Z-80, or 8085.  The 68K was difficult to support because it
was such a radical departure.  Motorola took a long time to come up with
a VM MMU, and most of the "Support chips" to build a complete system at
a competitive price.  They also took too long to support 8-bit data-busses.
This isn't as significant now, but when you needed 16 chips to get 128K
and 4 bit Drams weren't available, the 68K was an expensive proposition.