Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!gatech!mcdchg!nud!df
From: df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: dedicated vs general-purpose CPUs
Message-ID: <1216@nud.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 88 22:21:48 GMT
References: <5254@june.cs.washington.edu> <76700032@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1988Aug3.180947.12070@utzoo.uucp> <1221@ficc.UUCP>
Reply-To: df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 21

Peter da Silva (peter@ficc.UUCP) writes:

> Better to use a GP processor as your main CPU, and use a graphics library
> that's implemented in hardware or software, whichever's cheaper. When you
> run out of MIPS, stick a graphics accelerator (like the Amiga Blitter)
> in and pop in a new shared library.

Yes, that does work, but what Henry has been saying is that when you
run out of MIPS, stick in another GP processor as an additional main CPU.
That way you can dynamically assign functions to processors rather than
having them "hard" partitioned.

Modern processors typically contain a superset of the performance and
functionality of typical graphics accelerators chips.  I believe that
we are near the point (if we haven't already crossed it) where the GP
chip beats the special purpose chip in price as well as performance.

-Dale

-- 
Dale Farnsworth		602-438-3092	noao!nud!df