[NOSC] Chuck Moore website and new Forth chips

[Rick Hohensee <humbubba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> Rick Hohensee wrote:
>  
> > 60000 MIPS might be too hard to believe. 
> 
> It is impressive for a $1 chip.  The MIPS numbers for
> one Pentium sized or wafer sized will be harder for
> people to believe.  The MIPS numbers for a Pentium
> sized version in .1u or smaller would be harder 
> for people to believe.
> 
> Many people didn't believe that 100MIPS in 1.2u
> was possible or that 500MIPS in .8u was possible
> after it was done it was pretty obvious that
> they didn't care either.  I try not to be
> concerned about the people who can't belive
> it or don't care.
> 
> > It might be an easier sell to talk about a 
> > one-cycle process-switch.
> 
> Have you tried to sell the idea?  Has there been

No, but it's a transparent drop-in to existing stuff on the scale of
things under discussion here.

> serious interest in a super fast task switching
> processor with a 0.4ns task switch?  



> 
> > 25 task processors. I don't know if
> > routing that is easier or harder though. 
> 
> A 25 way bus arbitration unit would be more
> complex that what Chuck is doing and would
> keep 24 of 25 processors shut down at any
> given time.  Given that Chuck has gone to

I assume the only-one-active aspect.

> dynamic logic processors would lose all their
> contents if shut down for very long.  So
> instead of 4% throughput it would be a tiny bit
> lower due to the extra overhead to keep all
> shut down processors alive waiting for a task
> switch.  
> 

Throughput is 100% of "keep the pins busy" and 4% of "keep the silicon
busy", has lower current draw? , lower exotherm? , and I don't think
you'll get near 100% utilization of 25 engines. Clustering might scale
close to that. SMP doesn't. 

> > Make it 32 bit, with two 18 bit cache SRAMs, 
> 
> Twice the number of pins and some multiple of the
> development cost of course.
> 
> > put it on a PCI card, call it a multimedia board, 
> > and don't tell them it doesn't need the x86.
> 
> Making a product that used a new chip is 
> completely different thing than desiging or
> making the chip.  That can require orders of
> magnitude higher budgets.  Who or what company
> is that you are suggesting should develop this 
> PCI card product with the 32 bit chip? What
> do you think would be a good PC application 
> for the product to target?  I certainly could
> be done and it might be a good idea.

I dono.  :o)

Rick Hohensee



> ------------------------
> 
> To Unsubscribe from this list, send mail to Mdaemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with:
> unsubscribe NOSC
> as the first and only line within the message body
> Problems   -   List-Admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Main 4th site   -   http://www.
> 
> 

------------------------

To Unsubscribe from this list, send mail to Mdaemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with:
unsubscribe NOSC
as the first and only line within the message body
Problems   -   List-Admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main 4th site   -   http://www.