Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 97 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 11:42 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 14:55 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 17:59 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-30 13:50 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-02 23:53 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-03 19:10 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 07:41 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 20:22 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 08:39 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 07:51 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 14:05 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 09:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 19:23 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 00:41 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 15:43 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 21:14 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 17:58 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-04 13:40 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 21:34 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-04 09:49 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-10 00:10 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 16:42 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 14:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:02 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:34 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:53 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 16:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 17:00 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-11 19:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 23:52 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-13 07:56 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 15:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:29 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 14:14 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 21:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 15:26 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 02:21 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 19:40 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:07 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 22:12 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 18:38 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 23:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-02 00:19 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-02 16:06 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-06 03:14 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-30 16:34 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-01 01:27 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-01 16:57 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-02 16:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 02:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-05 00:39 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-06 18:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-02 19:23 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-09-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:26 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-05 19:45 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-04 13:22 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-10-06 02:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 01:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:56 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 21:05 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:40 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 23:16 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:19 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-09 09:59 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:46 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-10-10 07:29 +1100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 17:11 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:11 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 20:46 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 14:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 00:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-13 20:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 17:36 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:34 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-08 23:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <2012100823162984153-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #16071 |
On 2012-10-08 20:40:23 +0000, rickman said: > On 10/8/2012 4:05 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >> On 2012-10-08 20:00:22 +0000, rickman said: >> >>> On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >>>> >>>> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>> >>> WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 >>> has in total! >>> >>> Rick >> >> :) >> >> Well I do like the idea of having a system like 64 super T800 trams on a >> single chip… call me old fationed but I liked the 1MB tram cards... >> >> Chris > > I don't remember the name of the company, but someone was supposed to > be working on a combined processor/memory which was more like a memory > chip with an embedded processor than a processor with memory. Once > they do that, there is no reason why it couldn't be an array of > processors. > > Personally I never quite got the hang of Transputers. I did work with > them for a while though. Not sure if the system ever got built. It > was for a spook agency. Massively parallel. The software people felt > the need to implement a full blown networking scheme on the links. I'm > not sure how well that worked. > > Rick Loved Transputers, the more the better. Very simple to wire up and use. Taos ran very well on them, was nice having a PC with 30 T800s in my bedroom to play with ! Ah, thoses we're the days… didn't need extra heating in that room on chilly nights… :) Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 00:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <44082c36-9f9e-477f-98dc-39b3252508d4@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16076 |
On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2012-10-08 20:40:23 +0000, rickman said: > > > > > > > On 10/8/2012 4:05 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: > >> On 2012-10-08 20:00:22 +0000, rickman said: > > >>> On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: > > >>>> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. > > >>>> Chris > > >>> WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 > >>> has in total! > > >>> Rick > > >> :) > > >> Well I do like the idea of having a system like 64 super T800 trams on a > >> single chip… call me old fationed but I liked the 1MB tram cards... > > >> Chris > > > I don't remember the name of the company, but someone was supposed to > > be working on a combined processor/memory which was more like a memory > > chip with an embedded processor than a processor with memory. Once > > they do that, there is no reason why it couldn't be an array of > > processors. > > > Personally I never quite got the hang of Transputers. I did work with > > them for a while though. Not sure if the system ever got built. It > > was for a spook agency. Massively parallel. The software people felt > > the need to implement a full blown networking scheme on the links. I'm > > not sure how well that worked. > > > Rick > > Loved Transputers, the more the better. Very simple to wire up and use. > Taos ran very well on them, was nice having a PC with 30 T800s in my > bedroom to play with ! Ah, thoses we're the days… didn't need extra > heating in that room on chilly nights… :) > > Chris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Taos... Sigh... Loved that OS...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 18:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <2012100918435931738-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #16080 |
On 2012-10-09 07:19:35 +0000, Mark Wills said: > On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2012-10-08 20:40:23 +0000, rickman said: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 10/8/2012 4:05 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >>>> On 2012-10-08 20:00:22 +0000, rickman said: >> >>>>> On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >> >>>>>> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. >> >>>>>> Chris >> >>>>> WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 >>>>> has in total! >> >>>>> Rick >> >>>> :) >> >>>> Well I do like the idea of having a system like 64 super T800 trams on a >>>> single chip… call me old fationed but I liked the 1MB tram cards... >> >>>> Chris >> >>> I don't remember the name of the company, but someone was supposed to >>> be working on a combined processor/memory which was more like a memory >>> chip with an embedded processor than a processor with memory. Once >>> they do that, there is no reason why it couldn't be an array of >>> processors. >> >>> Personally I never quite got the hang of Transputers. I did work with >>> them for a while though. Not sure if the system ever got built. It >>> was for a spook agency. Massively parallel. The software people felt >>> the need to implement a full blown networking scheme on the links. I'm >>> not sure how well that worked. >> >>> Rick >> >> Loved Transputers, the more the better. Very simple to wire up and use. >> Taos ran very well on them, was nice having a PC with 30 T800s in my >> bedroom to play with ! Ah, thoses we're the days… didn't need extra >> heating in that room on chilly nights… :) >> >> Chris- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Taos... Sigh... Loved that OS... Thank you. Glad it touched a few people. :) It was great fun doing Taos. You'll have me blubbing about the old days in a while... I did post a few press article scans up publicly on Wikipedia under the Virtual_Processor page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Processor Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 09:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <5073f58a$0$3085$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #16065 |
In article <2012100821052179545-chrishinsley@gmailcom>, Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2012-10-08 20:00:22 +0000, rickman said: > >> On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >>> >>> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. >>> >>> Chris >>> >> >> WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 >> has in total! >> >> Rick > >:) > >Well I do like the idea of having a system like 64 super T800 trams on >a single chip… call me old fationed but I liked the 1MB tram cards... In my twin prime counting (100+ transputers) I discovered that those with 8 Mbyte did about 8 times the work of those with 1 Mbyte... > >Chris > Groetjes Albert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 18:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <2012100918464359622-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #16090 |
On 2012-10-09 09:59:38 +0000, Albert van der Horst said: > In article <2012100821052179545-chrishinsley@gmailcom>, > Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2012-10-08 20:00:22 +0000, rickman said: >> >>> On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >>>> >>>> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>> >>> WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 >>> has in total! >>> >>> Rick >> >> :) >> >> Well I do like the idea of having a system like 64 super T800 trams on >> a single chip… call me old fationed but I liked the 1MB tram cards... > > In my twin prime counting (100+ transputers) I discovered that those > with 8 Mbyte did about 8 times the work of those with 1 Mbyte... > >> >> Chris >> > > Groetjes Albert My budget didn't extend to 8MB Trams. :( Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | marko <marko@marko.marko> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-10 07:29 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <50748947$0$51970$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #16064 |
rickman wrote: > On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >> >> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. >> >> Chris >> > > WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 has > in total! > > Rick So much of this is due to using modern vlsi tools? Sure the Forth based okcad got the GA144 chip into production at low cost making it possible. But I wonder if this would have been the result in a conventional design and layout operation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 17:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <k523uj$jk8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16127 |
On 10/9/2012 4:29 PM, marko wrote: > rickman wrote: > >> On 10/8/2012 3:43 PM, Chris Hinsley wrote: >>> >>> Wish it had a bit more local memory, but yep, it looks quite nice. >>> >>> Chris >>> >> >> WTF?!!! This thing has more memory on each processor than the GA144 has >> in total! >> >> Rick > > So much of this is due to using modern vlsi tools? > > Sure the Forth based okcad got the GA144 chip into production at low cost > making it possible. But I wonder if this would have been the result in a > conventional design and layout operation. I shouldn't speak for the chip designers, but from what they have written, they could ONLY design this chip using their own tools. They even talk about how SPICE is broken and should not be used for anything because it did not accurately model their designs. The size of the memory is not a result of any limitation of tools or anything else. They picked 64 words of RAM as the optimum size for their system design. Go figure. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-10 01:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <8655639.6yfpS9rpgy@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16130 |
rickman wrote: > I shouldn't speak for the chip designers, but from what they have > written, they could ONLY design this chip using their own tools. They > even talk about how SPICE is broken and should not be used for > anything because it did not accurately model their designs. Yes, I've heard that, too. I've done simulations with the same process (180nm TSMC logic process), and Spice/Spectre was perfectly right and accurate. TSMC's models have a rather good reputation, most of the time accurate to the point (though some model parameters like resistor tempco are only available under typical conditions). I don't know what Chuck did wrong, but I think he did something wrong. I had tutored a few beginners, and you can indeed make quite a number of mistakes with these tools. Chuck doesn't like these complex and horribly expensive tools, but if you negotiate, these tools are far less expensive than wasting years with full-custom hand-layout, they do get a lot of work done for you. As this is mostly a digital chip, I wouldn't even consider using Spice, the digital models are accurate enough. Chucks horror storries about conventional tools go pretty far back in time, at least back to ShBoom. That's more than 20 years. Yes, the tools were really bad back then. The tools have gotten better over time. I had been pretty annoyed by the tools nearly 15 years ago, when I started. They often didn't do what I wanted them to do, or at least were suboptimal. But they improved. For small designs, they are almost perfect now. A coworker asked me about a particular Verilog construct in the b16 ALU, and I explained him how I build an ALU out of a full adder and two multiplexer per bit. He said "the synthesis tool is never going to do that for you", and I checked: It did. Both the current synthesis tool from Cadence and Synopsys did what I wanted them to do. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 20:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <k52gi0$s7h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16137 |
On 10/9/2012 7:11 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > For small designs, they are almost perfect now. A coworker > asked me about a particular Verilog construct in the b16 ALU, and I > explained him how I build an ALU out of a full adder and two multiplexer > per bit. He said "the synthesis tool is never going to do that for > you", and I checked: It did. Both the current synthesis tool from > Cadence and Synopsys did what I wanted them to do. What was the construct he said you couldn't get from synthesis, a mux on each input bit? Why would that be hard to synthesize? Also, what did this buy you? In my CPU design I wanted the address sequencer to be as fast as possible and I found I could use the incrementer/adder as a mux as well. So that logic all fit in one 4-input LUT. I think I had the instruction fetch loop down to the decode logic plus two levels of LUTs and the memory setup and hold time. Turned out it was the stack address units that slowed the design the most, the error flags actually. Good reason to toss the flags I suppose. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-10 14:48 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <3360848.Rmz5PJB1yY@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16140 |
rickman wrote: > On 10/9/2012 7:11 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> For small designs, they are almost perfect now. A coworker >> asked me about a particular Verilog construct in the b16 ALU, and I >> explained him how I build an ALU out of a full adder and two >> multiplexer >> per bit. He said "the synthesis tool is never going to do that for >> you", and I checked: It did. Both the current synthesis tool from >> Cadence and Synopsys did what I wanted them to do. > > What was the construct he said you couldn't get from synthesis, a mux > on each input bit? Why would that be hard to synthesize? Also, what > did this buy you? I think he was more sceptical about the full adder. This is very compact and buys space. The guy also argued that space isn't an issue at all at 180nm, and therefore could be wasted, and my reply was "that's why your part is huge and mine is small". > In my CPU design I wanted the address sequencer to be as fast as > possible and I found I could use the incrementer/adder as a mux as > well. > So that logic all fit in one 4-input LUT. I think I had the > instruction fetch loop down to the decode logic plus two levels of > LUTs > and the memory setup and hold time. Turned out it was the stack > address > units that slowed the design the most, the error flags actually. Good > reason to toss the flags I suppose. According to my ex-coworker, you should not try to optimize the design for speed or area, but rather for readability by idiots. Because as they are mean to you, you will quit, and then these idiots will have to maintain your code. Any sort of cleverness is strictly prohibited. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-12 13:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <b33f548c-c8d9-4576-a955-f272a7a8f516@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16154 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:48:20 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > rickman wrote: > > > > > On 10/9/2012 7:11 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > > >> For small designs, they are almost perfect now. A coworker > > >> asked me about a particular Verilog construct in the b16 ALU, and I > > >> explained him how I build an ALU out of a full adder and two > > >> multiplexer > > >> per bit. He said "the synthesis tool is never going to do that for > > >> you", and I checked: It did. Both the current synthesis tool from > > >> Cadence and Synopsys did what I wanted them to do. > > > > > > What was the construct he said you couldn't get from synthesis, a mux > > > on each input bit? Why would that be hard to synthesize? Also, what > > > did this buy you? > > > > I think he was more sceptical about the full adder. This is very > > compact and buys space. The guy also argued that space isn't an issue > > at all at 180nm, and therefore could be wasted, and my reply was "that's > > why your part is huge and mine is small". > > > > > In my CPU design I wanted the address sequencer to be as fast as > > > possible and I found I could use the incrementer/adder as a mux as > > > well. > > > So that logic all fit in one 4-input LUT. I think I had the > > > instruction fetch loop down to the decode logic plus two levels of > > > LUTs > > > and the memory setup and hold time. Turned out it was the stack > > > address > > > units that slowed the design the most, the error flags actually. Good > > > reason to toss the flags I suppose. > > > > According to my ex-coworker, you should not try to optimize the design > > for speed or area, but rather for readability by idiots. Because as > > they are mean to you, you will quit, and then these idiots will have to > > maintain your code. Any sort of cleverness is strictly prohibited. > > > > -- > > Bernd Paysan > > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > > http://bernd-paysan.de/ mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-13 00:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <k5c919$otl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16221 |
On 10/12/2012 4:35 PM, gavino_himself wrote: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:48:20 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> According to my ex-coworker, you should not try to optimize the design >> for speed or area, but rather for readability by idiots. Because as >> they are mean to you, you will quit, and then these idiots will have to >> maintain your code. Any sort of cleverness is strictly prohibited. >> >> Bernd Paysan > > mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Rod seems to think we should be embracing these sorts of requests, but I find them occasionally entertaining, but most of the time idiotic. I don't see value in them at any time. Forth can be run on any CPU. The chips that are designed to implement a MISC type, stack based processor are not anything like CPUs used to make PCs. They run nowhere near as fast and address no where near enough memory to handle the tasks a PC needs to handle. The persistent questions of Forth chip based PCs that run on batteries for a month and make current PCs obsolete get old after a while. If you want to the computer you are asking for, check out any of the many Andriod based tablets available. They are the next wave of computing and the PC as we know it will be something like obsolete in another five years (meaning they will be selling far less than half the units as the Android type devices). These devices will run Forth just fine, but they won't be written in Forth. Get used to it! Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-13 20:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <k5d22r$oi2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16236 |
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k5c919$otl$2@dont-email.me... > On 10/12/2012 4:35 PM, gavino_himself wrote: ... > > mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer > > pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than > amd? > > Rod seems to think we should be embracing these sorts of requests, [...] What? I've repeatedly stated that Gavino should stop asking such things. What you're thinking of is where I recently said that Forth, for it to be more popular in the future, needs to be able to do the things Gavino asks to have coded in Forth, like operating systems, webbrowsers, websites, IRC, NNTP, databases, and forums, etc. Forth being able to actually do something is not the same as embracing Gavino's strange questions. For some posts of Gavino's, I've also replied in a way that was designed to get him to think about his questions in the non-Forth programming context he understands, when the answer is the exactly the same as for Forth. Bernd discussing his chip is entirely off-topic too. So, how is that you asking Bernd questions about his chip is any different from someone engaging Gavino? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-14 17:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <k5fb91$u1n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16256 |
On 10/13/2012 8:51 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "rickman"<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:k5c919$otl$2@dont-email.me... >> On 10/12/2012 4:35 PM, gavino_himself wrote: > .... > >>> mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer >>> pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than >> amd? >> >> Rod seems to think we should be embracing these sorts of requests, [...] > > What? I've repeatedly stated that Gavino should stop asking such things. > > What you're thinking of is where I recently said that Forth, for it to be > more popular in the future, needs to be able to do the things Gavino asks to > have coded in Forth, like operating systems, webbrowsers, websites, IRC, > NNTP, databases, and forums, etc. Forth being able to actually do something > is not the same as embracing Gavino's strange questions. > > For some posts of Gavino's, I've also replied in a way that was designed to > get him to think about his questions in the non-Forth programming context he > understands, when the answer is the exactly the same as for Forth. > > Bernd discussing his chip is entirely off-topic too. So, how is that you > asking Bernd questions about his chip is any different from someone > engaging Gavino? > > > Rod Pemberton > > At least I know you are reading my posts... ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-12 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74560c82-e62e-40f8-8a0f-b980cd64cf02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15795 |
On Friday, September 28, 2012 7:16:25 AM UTC-7, B.Person wrote: > Posted 16 hours ago. Time to get into the ARM world; IMHO. > > > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/09/99-raspberry-pi-sized-supercomputer-touted-in-kickstarter-project/ http://www.bigtits.com/videos/watch/barbie-bennett-and-sara-maclaughlin-having-a-nice-time-with-their-hot-friend-on-the-tub/34547 whats total mhz? how much ram?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-26 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbba763e-4c80-491d-859f-3ad7a7d0a462@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15795 |
~24 hours remaining, and $44,000 left to raise. If your interested in getting a board, now is the time to pledge your support. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adapteva/parallella-a-supercomputer-for-everyone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <bbcb4312-1bdf-4f38-b6d4-ae752832f578@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16745 |
They passed the $750,000 pledge goal. Now the wait to get the board.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web