Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!ccplumb
From: ccplumb@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.transputer
Subject: Re: Atari Transputers ? & A British ST/Amiga Rival ?
Message-ID: <15132@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 8-Oct-87 12:43:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.15132
Posted: Thu Oct  8 12:43:48 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 05:05:54 EDT
References: <8709181728.AA13664@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1623@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1717@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> <21@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.atari.st:5186 comp.sys.misc:846 comp.sys.amiga:8574 junk:6035

In article <21@lzaz.ATT.COM> bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) writes:
>One major point about RISC that I haven't seen mentioned, is that a simpler
>instruction set implies that a LOT less silicon is devoted to micro-code.
>This silicon can be used for other things such as a large number of
>registers or, in the Transputers case, support of high speed serial
>communication lines. One reason RISC's execute faster is that access to
>on chip memory (e.g. registers) is faster than accessing off chip registers.
>Also, in some RISCs the instruction set is implemented using
>logic as opposed to micro-code which is usually faster too.

I'd just like to point out that almost *none* of this applies to the
Transputer.  It's got *lots* of microcode (to do multiprocessing and message
passing, etc.), and no registers in the VAX/68000/most RISC chips sense.

Some people (myself included) would argue that if the chip is microcoded,
it isn't RISC.  I certainly don't think the Transputer is a RISC chip.
It's stripped down in some ways, but those ways aren't the ones "RISC" chips.
use.  Based on the power of what's built into microcode, it's a CISC.
--
	-Colin Plumb (watmath!ccplumb)

Zippy says:
Catsup and Mustard all over the place!  It's the Human Hamburger!