Re: GA144 article

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: GA144 article
Date	2012-07-27 13:17 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<ccbfde62-40d5-4e0f-861c-38a6220bb9d3@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	<12aeb4bb-d890-4054-be00-c8c2b25b80dd@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> <20bfe8cc-640d-4c88-8fa7-1ae05de11762@googlegroups.com> <7xhasxwjqj.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <f36c6ee2-bfce-49fa-a200-c30391401e80@googlegroups.com> <7x394es208.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:25:59 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think the first FPGA from Xilinx only had 64 CLBs which at that time
> > were likely just one LUT and one FF although I don't recall, that was
> > some 20 odd years ago.  And yes, you had to do all your own floor
> > planning.  The experts in FPGAs all knew the details of how the
> > routing connected.  Now no one cares as they just write HDL and the
> > morass of software tools gives you something good enough given the
> > huge amount of resources available.
> 
> Does saying the GA144 situation today resembles the FPGA situation of 20
> years ago (that nobody wants to deal with any more) really make the
> GA144 sound so attractive today?  I can accept that the GA144 would have
> been an awesome product compared to other devices of that era, if it had
> been shipped 20 years ago.  It's harder for me to make such a case in
> the GA144's own era.

People used FPGAs 20 years ago because they were useful then, just as the GA144 is useful now.  It can do things that no other chip can do. 

> > I have seen products shipped using only 10% of a $1500 FPGA.
> 
> FPGA's come in all sorts of sizes, with cost roughly proportionate to
> their size.  Couldn't they have used a $150 FPGA a tenth the size,
> especially if they were shipping more than a handful of the product?

You are missing one of the big advantages of FPGAs, that you can update the firmware and ship a product that can be expanded in the field.  

Let's look at it another way.  People want to see all of the LUTs in an FPGA used, but they don't seem to care about the routing!  A Xilinx rep once tried to make a point to me by saying, they are selling me the routing and GIVING me the LUTs for FREE!  The point was don't sweat being able to use all the LUTs as all designs have tradeoffs and they prefer to reduce the chip cost by not adding as much routing so some of their customers can't use all the LUTs.  This reduces the cost to all.  

Chuck's philosophy is the same.  The nodes are cheap, so what if you can't use all 144?  Does your app need 144 nodes?  Worry about getting your app done, not how many nodes you can utilize. 

> > I think the word analogy to be a poor one.  Rather than thinking of a
> > node as a Forth word, think of it as a functional element where the
> > function is software defined. 
> 
> It seems to me that GA144 nodes are probably more efficient than FPGA
> cells at doing the stuff that maps naturally to GA144 operations, but
> FPGA cells are more flexible at being combined into bigger functions.
> Even ignoring limitations on the number of nodes, the speed of
> node-to-node communications on the GA144 is rather slow compared to
> FPGA's, because you need software on each node copying the data around,
> instead of just wires.  Maybe future GA processors can combine more
> approaches (FGPA's, DSP slices, etc) with the basic F18 cell.

I can't think of an app where the GA144 processing is fast enough but the comms time is too slow. 

I'm not worried about what the GA144 might become.  I am interested in using it now.  There are LOTs of pipedreams which will never materialize.  The GA144 is here now and I am working to use it. 

Rick

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

GA144 article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-18 03:48 -0700
  Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-19 10:51 -0700
    Re: GA144 article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-20 01:30 -0700
      Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-20 01:48 -0700
        Re: GA144 article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-20 03:25 -0700
        Re: GA144 article Syd Rumpo <usenet@neonica.co.uk> - 2012-07-20 11:59 +0100
      Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-22 18:59 -0700
        Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-22 19:16 -0700
          Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-22 19:31 -0700
            Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-22 20:08 -0700
              Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-23 16:24 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-23 22:33 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 14:04 -0700
            Re: GA144 article vandys@vsta.org - 2012-07-23 03:34 +0000
            Re: GA144 article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-23 14:11 +0200
              Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-23 16:47 -0700
              Re: GA144 article "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 20:11 -0700
          Re: GA144 article Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-07-23 02:04 -0500
  Re: GA144 article Daniel Kalny <dkalny@seznam.cz> - 2012-07-24 02:37 -0700
    Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-24 03:12 -0700
      Re: GA144 article stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-24 10:36 +0000
        Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-24 10:28 -0700
          Re: GA144 article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-24 22:12 +0000
      Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 14:49 -0700
        Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-26 13:25 -0700
          Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-27 13:17 -0700
            Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-27 14:31 -0700
              Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-27 22:02 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-28 23:03 -0700
                Re: GA144 article marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-07-30 09:12 +1000
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 01:09 -0700
                Re: GA144 article marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-08-01 00:19 +1000
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 09:59 -0700
                Re: GA144 article marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-08-01 10:13 +1000
                Re: GA144 article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-08-01 00:59 +0200
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 16:54 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2012-08-04 10:46 +0200
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-05 11:04 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2012-08-06 02:02 +0200
                Re: GA144 article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-06 02:16 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 08:23 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-30 21:33 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 01:51 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-31 11:48 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 14:54 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-31 16:09 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 12:57 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-01 14:16 -0700
                Re: GA144 article vandys@vsta.org - 2012-08-01 22:32 +0000
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 16:03 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-01 16:13 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 16:10 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-01 22:18 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 11:47 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-02 14:32 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 16:01 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-02 16:38 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-03 08:40 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-03 09:19 -0700
                Re: GA144 article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-08-03 11:15 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-05 15:50 -0700
                Re: GA144 article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-06 02:21 -0700

csiph-web