Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!reed!mdr
From: mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Press Release: Intel announces 80960 architecture
Message-ID: <8755@reed.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 88 03:27:07 GMT
References: <3358@omepd> <10320@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: mdr@reed.UUCP (Mike Rutenberg)
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 29
Keywords: 80960, RISC, embedded control

In article <10320@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>Questions on the 80960:
>  2) why didn't they release this instead of the 80386?
>  3) why is it for "embedded applications" (as opposed to general use)?

Controllers for "embedded applications" are a huge and growing market
that seems to have been largely ignored by other RISC chip manufacturer
(where the main orientation seems to be toward workstations).  If there
is to be a shakeout in the computer RISC market, so why should Intel
even get involved in that?  They have experience, customers (millions
of those little i8051s are out there) and infinite growth potential in
the *fast* controller field.  Even better, they can easily put together
custom parts based on standard building blocks for specific
applications.  This is good if I want real-time dashboard display
updates in my Cadillac, but don't really need the FPU.

I also suspect that this is not being presented as a workstation chip
because that would confuse and somewhat scare the popular world (among
them investors and big IBM PC customers) who really need to feel the
80x86 is Intel's architecture for furture computers.  If the RISC chip
happens to get designed into computers, that is fine, but I doubt they
will push for it immediately.

Remember that there are lots of IBM 801s acting as channel controllers
for IBM 3090s.  RISCs can be used for "embedded applications."

Mike
-- 
Mike Rutenberg    for fast, robust food and software      (503)771-5516