Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!voder!apple!bcase
From: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: brash micros versus the Big Iron: not yet
Message-ID: <6357@apple.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Sep-87 18:38:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.6357
Posted: Sat Sep 26 18:38:44 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 11:46:43 EDT
References: <622@winchester.UUCP> <2083@sfsup.UUCP> <954@edge.UUCP>
Reply-To: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 24

In article <954@edge.UUCP> doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes:
>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  :-)

Oops, a slightly different design center, I think.  ECL (GaAs), terminated
differential lines, etc. are a little beyond even what EDGE is probably
willing to charge for.

>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?  :-)

Hey, I like that idea.  Unfortunately, it might deteriorate into
comp.arch.flame, but maybe another forum (mail list)?