Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!edge!doug
From: doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: brash micros versus the Big Iron: not yet
Message-ID: <954@edge.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Sep-87 18:49:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: edge.954
Posted: Thu Sep 24 18:49:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 01:59:09 EDT
References: <622@winchester.UUCP> <2083@sfsup.UUCP>
Organization: Edge Computer Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ
Lines: 21

In response to my comment that many of the "RISC wins" only exist if one
is insistent upon putting the CPU into a single chip, Gerry Gleason says:

>Don't forget that you get big performance benifits by keeping things on
>one chip, since it is expensive in both time and power to drive off chip
>loads...
>Bus bandwidth is becoming a major bottleneck for most processors, and the
>only solution is to eliminate them from the artchitecture, or by shrinking
>the circuit so some busses are completely contained on a chip.

I wonder if Seymour Cray knows that he's barking up the wrong tree by
designing multiple-chip CPUs?  Somebody ought to tell him  :-)

At this point I'm going to let the subject drop.  There are already too many
companies whose postings to comp.arch are nearly indistinguishable from
marketing propaganda.  Maybe we should form comp.arch.vested-interest?  :-)

[the usual disclaimer: If Edge wanted someone to speak for them, they sure
wouldn't pick *me*!]
-- 
Doug Pardee -- Edge Computer Corp., Scottsdale, AZ -- ihnp4!oliveb!edge!doug