Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!littlei!intelisc!omepd!mcg
From: mcg@omepd (Steven McGeady)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Press Release: Intel announces 80960 architecture
Message-ID: <3363@omepd>
Date: 11 Apr 88 17:29:13 GMT
References: <3358@omepd> <10320@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: mcg@iwarpo3.UUCP (Steve McGeady)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro
Lines: 60
Keywords: 80960, RISC, embedded control


In article <10320@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>Questions on the 80960:
>  1) why now?

Although the processor silicon has been available and working since
December 1985, it was felt that it was proper that we give ourselves more time
to develop quality software tools for the processors, to more thoroughly
validate the correctness of the silicon, and (frankly) to let the 386 more
thoroughly saturate the marketplace.

Rather than the strategy of some other vendors, we felt it important that
we release real silicon with real tools, so people could start working
with the chips *today*, not a year from now.  With the 80960, there was no
installed base that needed to be apprised of developments, so there were
no pre-announcements.

>  2) why didn't they release this instead of the 80386?

Well, this doesn't require much thought.  The world is chock-full of MS-DOS
applications, and their is a clear market for the 80386 processor.  In fact,
it can be said without fear of contradiction that it has been the *most*
popular reprogrammable (vs. embedded) single-chip microprocessor in history.
One doesn't shoot one's milk cow when one acquires a horse.

Don't for a moment believe that there won't be a 486, 586, and so forth.
To paraphrase the old quip about Fortran: "I don't know what processors I'll
be using in the year 2000, but one of them will have an '86' in the part
number."

>  3) why is it for "embedded applications" (as opposed to general use)?

The 80960 starter kit does not come with a pair of handcuffs that prevents
you from building a reprogrammable product with the processor.  However,
since Intel already has a processor that is performing admirably in the
reprogrammable marketplace, and because the 80960's architecture is well-tuned
to embedded applications, and because the embedded market is growing as fast
or faster than the reprogrammable marketplace, it was felt that this was
the most profitable area for an initial thrust.

>  4) what about memory management?

The press release failed to mention that a third member of the family, the
80960MC, has also been released.  The 80960MC implements the 80960
architecture, and includes the same floating-point unit as the 80960KB,
and also includes an on-chip memory management unit which supports a
standard virtual memory management system.  Key features of this memory
management system are: 4k pages, one- and two-level indirect page tables,
page dirty pits, protection bits, cachable bit for off-chip data caches,
etc.  This processor, the 80960MC is available in a mil-spec package,
and is targeted at military and high-reliability embedded applications that
require hardware protection of concurrent processes.

>I suspect that the answers to 2,3,4 are realted...

Not really.


S. McGeady
Intel Corp.