Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!amdahl!pacbell!belltec!jim
From: jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Today's dumb question...
Summary: Nice try, but...
Message-ID: <228@belltec.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 88 14:46:30 GMT
References: <503@xios.XIOS.UUCP> <2676@pdn.UUCP> <674@cernvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Technologies, Fremont, CA
Lines: 27

In article <674@cernvax.UUCP>, hjm@cernvax.UUCP (hjm) writes:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
>      I see the thorny subjects of RISC v. CISC and scalar v. vector have reared
> 
> 	- the cost of a computing system is primarily a function of size, 
> 	  weight and the number of chips or pins;
> 
> 	- to go really fast and to be efficient, the hardware should be simple;
> 
> 

    This is quite incorrect. The cost breakdown of any standard computer 
system is  power supply, hard disk, enclosure, memory (if you have a lot), 
burdened assembly cost, processor, other.  The actual cost difference 
between a Z80 and a 386 is minimal. They cost so much more because the 
entire system is upscaled: bigger power supply, large hard disk, etc.  A
386 PC which costs $1000 to build, only has $100 or so in logic (discounting
the CPU and memory). None of the major cost has anything to do with 
multiprocessing.  (I won't even waste time arguing that you can do 
multiprocessing on a single chip micro. It's the software that is complex
for multiprocessing, not the hardware.)

						-Jim Wall
						Bell Technologies Inc.

					...{ames,pyramid}!pacbell!belltec!jim