Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16222 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-10-12 13:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-10-18 23:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:36 -0700
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-12 22:49 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 00:06 -0400
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-13 22:34 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 16:46 -0400
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-14 00:24 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 19:09 -0400
Re: 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? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 01:46 -0700
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 04:25 -0700
Re: 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? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 05:35 -0700
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 16:43 -0400
The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-15 09:28 +0000
Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 03:02 -0700
Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-15 12:50 +0000
Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-15 14:47 +0200
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:10 -0700
Re: 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? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 21:53 -1000
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:00 -0700
Re: 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? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 22:18 -1000
Re: 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? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-19 09:11 +0000
Re: 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? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-15 03:17 -0700
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 16:52 -0400
Re: 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? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-16 02:20 -0700
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:13 -0700
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:07 -0700
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-13 20:53 -0400
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-15 15:41 +0200
Re: 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? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 07:01 -0700
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 09:31 -0700
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-15 19:51 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:47 -0400
Re: 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? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2012-10-16 11:10 +0100
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 15:55 -0400
Re: 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? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2012-10-16 21:31 +0100
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 17:06 -0400
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-16 20:56 -0700
Re: 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? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-16 23:44 -0500
Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-17 10:01 +0000
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-17 21:11 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:08 -0700
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 11:42 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:26 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-18 09:25 +0000
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:28 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 12:44 -0700
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 18:49 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 20:16 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-18 17:28 -0700
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-19 03:00 +0200
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-19 11:35 +0000
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-19 10:33 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 18:35 +0200
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 12:06 -0500
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 13:23 -0400
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-17 11:58 -0700
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 15:22 -0400
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 21:53 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 16:00 -0400
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 23:10 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 17:28 -0400
Re: 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? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 00:11 +0200
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:41 -0400
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:27 -0400
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 15:28 -0700
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 19:07 -0400
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 19:09 -0400
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:21 -0400
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:26 -0700
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:35 -0700
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:50 -0400
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:54 -0700
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 16:00 -0400
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-17 06:40 -0400
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 13:32 -0400
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-17 21:10 -0400
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:45 -0400
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-19 19:45 -0400
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 15:58 -0400
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-17 06:32 -0400
"Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-16 11:46 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-10-16 16:09 +0000
Re: "Too much data" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 16:04 -0400
Re: "Too much data" Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-16 11:37 -1000
Re: "Too much data" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 14:00 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 13:25 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 14:08 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:31 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-18 16:42 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) Ouatu Bogdan <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 18:41 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 12:20 -0700
Re: "Too much data" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-16 21:10 -0700
Re: "Too much data" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 05:01 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 23:55 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 00:06 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-17 10:25 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 14:21 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 17:54 +0200
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 15:58 +0000
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:27 -0400
Re: 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? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-15 08:02 -1000
Re: 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? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-15 11:39 -0700
Re: 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? Bill Marcum <bill@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-10-21 03:31 -0400
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:15 -0400
Re: 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? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-16 10:00 +0000
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:27 -0700
Re: 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? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:10 -0400
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:30 -0700
Re: 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 Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:38 -0400
Re: 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? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:48 -0700
Re: 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? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-15 21:18 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-16 21:31 +1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-16 16:56 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-16 11:26 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-17 12:30 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 22:35 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-17 18:15 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-18 16:45 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-19 00:31 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-18 22:34 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:01 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:06 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 02:16 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-19 19:51 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-19 18:25 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-20 16:49 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-20 22:49 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-19 22:02 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-20 17:07 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-20 14:48 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-21 02:56 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-20 22:30 -0700
Trains [Was: mr paysan where is your chip?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-21 04:46 -0500
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 19:28 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:33 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:00 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-19 11:45 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-18 18:26 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 08:45 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:43 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-22 13:07 +1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-21 19:24 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 05:15 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-22 14:33 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-10-22 12:06 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-23 10:44 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-22 09:29 -0500
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-22 16:30 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-16 08:52 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-17 18:25 +1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-17 08:33 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Frank Thomason <Frank@Thomason.com> - 2012-10-17 15:31 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 12:37 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 15:57 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 16:09 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-16 20:27 +0000
Re: 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? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 23:38 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-12 13:36 -0700 |
| Subject | 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? |
| Message-ID | <6bef0964-011f-4020-9d31-f7c887a52946@googlegroups.com> |
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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-12 22:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4626464.gGs9T4UXBT@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16222 |
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? As far as I can tell, the last development using my chip will go into an iPod battery monitor - or already went, because Apple and the company that produced it are quite secretive. It has 2 or 4k of RAM, and it won't run any firefox. It's *not* a PC CPU. It's a deeply embedded CPU. I think you should have a beer with Rod Pemberton, who will in deep explain you the fundamental difference between the two things. The other thing I designed, the 4stack CPU, is a 15 year old diploma thesis. I don't think it will be that competitive today. Though, when I look at all the ARMs around, which can be 10 times slower than a low- end AMD, maybe I'm wrong. -- 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 | 2012-10-13 00:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k5c91a$otl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16223 |
On 10/12/2012 4:49 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > 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? > > As far as I can tell, the last development using my chip will go into an > iPod battery monitor - or already went, because Apple and the company > that produced it are quite secretive. It has 2 or 4k of RAM, and it > won't run any firefox. It's *not* a PC CPU. It's a deeply embedded > CPU. I think you should have a beer with Rod Pemberton, who will in > deep explain you the fundamental difference between the two things. > > The other thing I designed, the 4stack CPU, is a 15 year old diploma > thesis. I don't think it will be that competitive today. Though, when > I look at all the ARMs around, which can be 10 times slower than a low- > end AMD, maybe I'm wrong. I remember looking at that some years ago, but I don't recall the significance. What was the advantage of four stacks? What were the "other" two stacks for? More importantly, what were it's successes and what were it's failures? Or in other terms, what was good and what wasn't as good about the architecture? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-13 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <51932083.Wq75TzlriR@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16237 |
rickman wrote: > I remember looking at that some years ago, but I don't recall the > significance. What was the advantage of four stacks? What were the > "other" two stacks for? This essentially was a VLIW CPU which used a stack architecture to make the instruction word less big. You shouldn't think of the four stacks as similar to the four stacks Gforth has (data, return, float, locals stack), all four are general purpose stacks, and are used for parallelizing instructions. > More importantly, what were it's successes and what were it's > failures? From a personal point of view the architecture's success was that I could write synthesizable Verilog within the time frame of a diploma thesis (which is only half a year), and the failure was that it was too big for the tools our university had back then to make a prototype. > Or in other terms, what was good and what wasn't as good about the > architecture? One thing that definitely wasn't good is the ease to target a C compiler at it (or even a Forth compiler). Back then, people were quite optimistic to improve C compilers towards wider issue machines, i.e. VLIWs, which was also the reason why Intel decided to replace x86 by IA64. They were all wrong. C compilers had just reached the point of unmaintainability, i.e. the point where further progress is almost impossible or at least requires to start over from scratch. Looking at llvm's output convinces me that starting over from scratch just results in faster generation of the same rubbish code and in neater error messages. What it did achieve was a quite high instruction per cycle count while still being quite small. However, as I said in the discussion about GA144 here, what actually matters most in computation performance today is not the CPU, it's the memory. And that's why the CPU architecture isn't important anymore. -- 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 | 2012-10-13 16:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k5cjvu$tru$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16247 |
On 10/13/2012 4:34 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > rickman wrote: >> I remember looking at that some years ago, but I don't recall the >> significance. What was the advantage of four stacks? What were the >> "other" two stacks for? > > This essentially was a VLIW CPU which used a stack architecture to make > the instruction word less big. You shouldn't think of the four stacks > as similar to the four stacks Gforth has (data, return, float, locals > stack), all four are general purpose stacks, and are used for > parallelizing instructions. > >> More importantly, what were it's successes and what were it's >> failures? > > From a personal point of view the architecture's success was that I > could write synthesizable Verilog within the time frame of a diploma > thesis (which is only half a year), and the failure was that it was too > big for the tools our university had back then to make a prototype. > >> Or in other terms, what was good and what wasn't as good about the >> architecture? > > One thing that definitely wasn't good is the ease to target a C compiler > at it (or even a Forth compiler). Back then, people were quite > optimistic to improve C compilers towards wider issue machines, i.e. > VLIWs, which was also the reason why Intel decided to replace x86 by > IA64. They were all wrong. C compilers had just reached the point of > unmaintainability, i.e. the point where further progress is almost > impossible or at least requires to start over from scratch. Looking at > llvm's output convinces me that starting over from scratch just results > in faster generation of the same rubbish code and in neater error > messages. > > What it did achieve was a quite high instruction per cycle count while > still being quite small. However, as I said in the discussion about > GA144 here, what actually matters most in computation performance today > is not the CPU, it's the memory. And that's why the CPU architecture > isn't important anymore. > Thanks for your explanation. I'm not clear how four stacks with one ALU (I'm assuming here since you haven't mentioned more) gives a big advantage. But that is what it is and if you aren't working in that direction I guess it is not likely to pay off benefits. I don't agree with your CPU vs. memory generalization. Yes, the GA144 is limited by its memory architecture, but that is a limitation, not a disqualification. As I have said before, the GA144 is not a processor to be compared to the IA64 or the high end ARMs. It can't do the job they can do and they can't do the jobs the GA144 can do. It's that simple, they are apples and oranges... or should be to everyone other than Gavino. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-14 00:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <15345671.vjEroXH6uk@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16249 |
rickman wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. I'm not clear how four stacks with one > ALU (I'm assuming here since you haven't mentioned more) I've mentioned VLIW, didn't I? I haven't mentioned "ALU" at all. VLIW doesn't have a "humpty dumpty" meaning you can define as you like it: They are four stacks with four ALUs, that's the whole point of the exercise. I don't think I have to mention everything about the 4stack processor in every posting I make; you can still read it up. Google for "4stack", and you'll still find my old web page. m( > gives a big > advantage. But that is what it is and if you aren't working in that > direction I guess it is not likely to pay off benefits. It wasn't the kind of CPU I needed for the work I did in the semiconductor industry in the past, that's why I created the b16 instead - most tasks need surprisingly little computation power. And to get the 4stack off and running as a commercial product (rather than just a thesis paper) requires too much funding - millions. And even though you don't agree with my CPU and memory generalization: The memory wall is not something I made up. And the difficulties to program a VLIW didn't go away. > I don't agree with your CPU vs. memory generalization. Yes, the GA144 > is limited by its memory architecture, but that is a limitation, not a > disqualification. Well, it is a pretty absurd limitation. Apart from the hearing aid, I haven't seen anything commercial that really uses this product. And the hearing aid would probably have been better off with a full custom solution. For the b16 tasks I made, I found that anything less than 2k of memory is too little. Ease of programming is important; you add a CPU to your chip because it is easier to program than Verilog. Making something deliberately difficult to program (as the GA144 is) means that its target audience are students with ample spare time who like to solve some puzzles. Not engineers who like to make a product in a limited time. Ease of programming *is* important. > As I have said before, the GA144 is not a processor > to be compared to the IA64 or the high end ARMs. It can't do the job > they can do and they can't do the jobs the GA144 can do. It's that > simple, they are apples and oranges... or should be to everyone other > than Gavino. I honestly don't know anything the GA144 is really good at. It is difficult to program. It is cornering itself into a small niche of the few algorithms that don't need memory (64 words is more like "no memory", because that's shared between program and data). The CPU core it uses would be quite good for all these little tasks where you don't need much computing power, but you also don't have much electric power. Let's put it that way: Chuck presented the c18 (the core that after some iterations went into the GA144) on EuroForth 2001 in Dagstuhl. I wrote the b16 in Verilog over the Christmas holidays, inspired by Chucks work. Four months later, we started the first product to put it into - a deviation of it, because as it is easy to adapt to the actual requirements, we did that. That's how commercially viable solutions look like. Not a solution looking for a problem, but a solution that naturally fits the problems customers have. I simply don't see that with GA144. Chuck is aiming at high performance and low power, something others attack successfully with modern processes instead. If he was aiming at medium performance and ultra-low-power, he would have a product. His power budget for the 144 cores is in the same order of magnitude as a high-end ARM with GPGPU, and those are designed to scale with quite a range of power requirements (dynamically). And please look at the figures: These high- end ARMs with GPGPU can do considerably more than GA144, they are cheaper than a GA144 (because they are filling fabs - really, entire fabs; this is big business), and it requires *less* external components to make them run (they are SoCs, all you need is a crystal and a bit of power management outside - and memory). Plus they are much easier to program. Chucks GA144 isn't an apple. But it isn't an orange, either. Nor is it a banana. It might be some decorative pumpkin, colorful, with warts on the outside, and hollow inside. GA144 is Chucks "burn the 125 million dollars the Moore patent portfolio generated" project. Unfortunately, Chuck doesn't even have that money. If you make a deal with the devil (and patent trolls totally qualify as devils), all the gold the devil gave you for your soul will evaporate at dawn. That's how it works, it's not just a fairy tale. -- 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 | 2012-10-14 19:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k5fgmt$rol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16253 |
On 10/13/2012 6:24 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > rickman wrote: >> Thanks for your explanation. I'm not clear how four stacks with one >> ALU (I'm assuming here since you haven't mentioned more) > > I've mentioned VLIW, didn't I? I haven't mentioned "ALU" at all. VLIW > doesn't have a "humpty dumpty" meaning you can define as you like it: > They are four stacks with four ALUs, that's the whole point of the > exercise. I don't think I have to mention everything about the 4stack > processor in every posting I make; you can still read it up. Google for > "4stack", and you'll still find my old web page. m( > >> gives a big >> advantage. But that is what it is and if you aren't working in that >> direction I guess it is not likely to pay off benefits. > > It wasn't the kind of CPU I needed for the work I did in the > semiconductor industry in the past, that's why I created the b16 instead > - most tasks need surprisingly little computation power. And to get the > 4stack off and running as a commercial product (rather than just a > thesis paper) requires too much funding - millions. And even though you > don't agree with my CPU and memory generalization: The memory wall is > not something I made up. And the difficulties to program a VLIW didn't > go away. > >> I don't agree with your CPU vs. memory generalization. Yes, the GA144 >> is limited by its memory architecture, but that is a limitation, not a >> disqualification. > > Well, it is a pretty absurd limitation. Apart from the hearing aid, I > haven't seen anything commercial that really uses this product. And the > hearing aid would probably have been better off with a full custom > solution. > > For the b16 tasks I made, I found that anything less than 2k of memory > is too little. Ease of programming is important; you add a CPU to your > chip because it is easier to program than Verilog. Making something > deliberately difficult to program (as the GA144 is) means that its > target audience are students with ample spare time who like to solve > some puzzles. Not engineers who like to make a product in a limited > time. Ease of programming *is* important. > >> As I have said before, the GA144 is not a processor >> to be compared to the IA64 or the high end ARMs. It can't do the job >> they can do and they can't do the jobs the GA144 can do. It's that >> simple, they are apples and oranges... or should be to everyone other >> than Gavino. > > I honestly don't know anything the GA144 is really good at. It is > difficult to program. It is cornering itself into a small niche of the > few algorithms that don't need memory (64 words is more like "no > memory", because that's shared between program and data). The CPU core > it uses would be quite good for all these little tasks where you don't > need much computing power, but you also don't have much electric power. > Let's put it that way: Chuck presented the c18 (the core that after some > iterations went into the GA144) on EuroForth 2001 in Dagstuhl. I wrote > the b16 in Verilog over the Christmas holidays, inspired by Chucks work. > Four months later, we started the first product to put it into - a > deviation of it, because as it is easy to adapt to the actual > requirements, we did that. > > That's how commercially viable solutions look like. Not a solution > looking for a problem, but a solution that naturally fits the problems > customers have. I simply don't see that with GA144. Chuck is aiming at > high performance and low power, something others attack successfully > with modern processes instead. If he was aiming at medium performance > and ultra-low-power, he would have a product. His power budget for the > 144 cores is in the same order of magnitude as a high-end ARM with > GPGPU, and those are designed to scale with quite a range of power > requirements (dynamically). And please look at the figures: These high- > end ARMs with GPGPU can do considerably more than GA144, they are > cheaper than a GA144 (because they are filling fabs - really, entire > fabs; this is big business), and it requires *less* external components > to make them run (they are SoCs, all you need is a crystal and a bit of > power management outside - and memory). Plus they are much easier to > program. > > Chucks GA144 isn't an apple. But it isn't an orange, either. Nor is it > a banana. It might be some decorative pumpkin, colorful, with warts on > the outside, and hollow inside. GA144 is Chucks "burn the 125 million > dollars the Moore patent portfolio generated" project. Unfortunately, > Chuck doesn't even have that money. If you make a deal with the devil > (and patent trolls totally qualify as devils), all the gold the devil > gave you for your soul will evaporate at dawn. That's how it works, > it's not just a fairy tale. > I had a well written, but somewhat lengthy reply written (although not as long as your message ;) all ready to send, when my computer crashed. I won't bother to rewrite it because you have heard it all before. I appreciate your b16 as well as your 4 stack architecture even if I don't remember the details (I do remember your b16 was very similar in architecture to mine, mainly different instruction encoding). To summarize our differences, I maintain that memory speed is a limitation in all high end processors and in some midlevel applications. The GA144 is not a high end processor and is not well suited to the apps you would run on those processors. It is suited to apps which need lots of small, fast processors such as SDR (software defined radio) with the advantage over FPGAs of potentially lower power consumption. We've been discussing this for some time now and we are being rather repetitive I think. I hope that we can figure out what to agree on and what our differences are, accept them and move on. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 01:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 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? |
| Message-ID | <0c07e259-d95c-49e9-a6d1-673b8b203048@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16273 |
On Oct 15, 12:09 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2012 6:24 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > > > > > > > rickman wrote: > >> Thanks for your explanation. I'm not clear how four stacks with one > >> ALU (I'm assuming here since you haven't mentioned more) > > > I've mentioned VLIW, didn't I? I haven't mentioned "ALU" at all. VLIW > > doesn't have a "humpty dumpty" meaning you can define as you like it: > > They are four stacks with four ALUs, that's the whole point of the > > exercise. I don't think I have to mention everything about the 4stack > > processor in every posting I make; you can still read it up. Google for > > "4stack", and you'll still find my old web page. m( > > >> gives a big > >> advantage. But that is what it is and if you aren't working in that > >> direction I guess it is not likely to pay off benefits. > > > It wasn't the kind of CPU I needed for the work I did in the > > semiconductor industry in the past, that's why I created the b16 instead > > - most tasks need surprisingly little computation power. And to get the > > 4stack off and running as a commercial product (rather than just a > > thesis paper) requires too much funding - millions. And even though you > > don't agree with my CPU and memory generalization: The memory wall is > > not something I made up. And the difficulties to program a VLIW didn't > > go away. > > >> I don't agree with your CPU vs. memory generalization. Yes, the GA144 > >> is limited by its memory architecture, but that is a limitation, not a > >> disqualification. > > > Well, it is a pretty absurd limitation. Apart from the hearing aid, I > > haven't seen anything commercial that really uses this product. And the > > hearing aid would probably have been better off with a full custom > > solution. > > > For the b16 tasks I made, I found that anything less than 2k of memory > > is too little. Ease of programming is important; you add a CPU to your > > chip because it is easier to program than Verilog. Making something > > deliberately difficult to program (as the GA144 is) means that its > > target audience are students with ample spare time who like to solve > > some puzzles. Not engineers who like to make a product in a limited > > time. Ease of programming *is* important. > > >> As I have said before, the GA144 is not a processor > >> to be compared to the IA64 or the high end ARMs. It can't do the job > >> they can do and they can't do the jobs the GA144 can do. It's that > >> simple, they are apples and oranges... or should be to everyone other > >> than Gavino. > > > I honestly don't know anything the GA144 is really good at. It is > > difficult to program. It is cornering itself into a small niche of the > > few algorithms that don't need memory (64 words is more like "no > > memory", because that's shared between program and data). The CPU core > > it uses would be quite good for all these little tasks where you don't > > need much computing power, but you also don't have much electric power. > > Let's put it that way: Chuck presented the c18 (the core that after some > > iterations went into the GA144) on EuroForth 2001 in Dagstuhl. I wrote > > the b16 in Verilog over the Christmas holidays, inspired by Chucks work. > > Four months later, we started the first product to put it into - a > > deviation of it, because as it is easy to adapt to the actual > > requirements, we did that. > > > That's how commercially viable solutions look like. Not a solution > > looking for a problem, but a solution that naturally fits the problems > > customers have. I simply don't see that with GA144. Chuck is aiming at > > high performance and low power, something others attack successfully > > with modern processes instead. If he was aiming at medium performance > > and ultra-low-power, he would have a product. His power budget for the > > 144 cores is in the same order of magnitude as a high-end ARM with > > GPGPU, and those are designed to scale with quite a range of power > > requirements (dynamically). And please look at the figures: These high- > > end ARMs with GPGPU can do considerably more than GA144, they are > > cheaper than a GA144 (because they are filling fabs - really, entire > > fabs; this is big business), and it requires *less* external components > > to make them run (they are SoCs, all you need is a crystal and a bit of > > power management outside - and memory). Plus they are much easier to > > program. > > > Chucks GA144 isn't an apple. But it isn't an orange, either. Nor is it > > a banana. It might be some decorative pumpkin, colorful, with warts on > > the outside, and hollow inside. GA144 is Chucks "burn the 125 million > > dollars the Moore patent portfolio generated" project. Unfortunately, > > Chuck doesn't even have that money. If you make a deal with the devil > > (and patent trolls totally qualify as devils), all the gold the devil > > gave you for your soul will evaporate at dawn. That's how it works, > > it's not just a fairy tale. > > I had a well written, but somewhat lengthy reply written (although not > as long as your message ;) all ready to send, when my computer crashed. > I won't bother to rewrite it because you have heard it all before. I > appreciate your b16 as well as your 4 stack architecture even if I don't > remember the details (I do remember your b16 was very similar in > architecture to mine, mainly different instruction encoding). > > To summarize our differences, I maintain that memory speed is a > limitation in all high end processors and in some midlevel applications. > The GA144 is not a high end processor and is not well suited to the > apps you would run on those processors. It is suited to apps which need > lots of small, fast processors such as SDR (software defined radio) with > the advantage over FPGAs of potentially lower power consumption. > > We've been discussing this for some time now and we are being rather > repetitive I think. I hope that we can figure out what to agree on and > what our differences are, accept them and move on. > > Rick- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Why do you consider SDR to need lots of small processors? There are plenty of videos on YouTube demoing SDR running on Arduino's and the like...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 04:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 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? |
| Message-ID | <7xmwzo0yge.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16279 |
Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> writes: > Why do you consider SDR to need lots of small processors? There are > plenty of videos on YouTube demoing SDR running on Arduino's and the > like... I'd expect in those demos, the Arduino cpu is only implementing a controller or UI. The actual demodulation is happening in a fast DSP or FPGA or something of that sort, like in GNU Radio. It's not obvious to me that all currently important modulation schemes can be parallelized well, but maybe they can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 05:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 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? |
| Message-ID | <78172702-61fb-4820-b175-8d4441cf8eb6@g4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16289 |
On Oct 15, 12:25 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> writes: > > Why do you consider SDR to need lots of small processors? There are > > plenty of videos on YouTube demoing SDR running on Arduino's and the > > like... > > I'd expect in those demos, the Arduino cpu is only implementing a > controller or UI. The actual demodulation is happening in a fast DSP or > FPGA or something of that sort, like in GNU Radio. It's not obvious to > me that all currently important modulation schemes can be parallelized > well, but maybe they can. Hmmm... Actually, you may be correct now that you mention it. I spent a hour or so a few weeks ago looking at SDR on YouTube and I do recall a lot of them (now that you've jogged my memory) using DSPs and the like. Thanks for the refresh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 16:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 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? |
| Message-ID | <k5hsib$726$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16279 |
On 10/15/2012 4:46 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Oct 15, 12:09 am, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> To summarize our differences, I maintain that memory speed is a >> limitation in all high end processors and in some midlevel applications. >> The GA144 is not a high end processor and is not well suited to the >> apps you would run on those processors. It is suited to apps which need >> lots of small, fast processors such as SDR (software defined radio) with >> the advantage over FPGAs of potentially lower power consumption. >> >> We've been discussing this for some time now and we are being rather >> repetitive I think. I hope that we can figure out what to agree on and >> what our differences are, accept them and move on. >> >> Rick- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Why do you consider SDR to need lots of small processors? There are > plenty of videos on YouTube demoing SDR running on Arduino's and the > like... You can do some very simple radio functions on a very simple processor, but you have to have more horsepower to do more advanced stuff. Heck, one of the radios I worked on had some two dozen processors in total with at least one a full blown top end ARM and all sorts of IF processing in an FPGA. Can an Arduio do that? What is your point? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 09:28 +0000 |
| Subject | The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) |
| Message-ID | <2012Oct15.112840@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #16253 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>The memory wall is
>not something I made up.
No, it's something that William Wulf and Sally McKee made up. And
their technical arguments were wrong, and I debunked them in
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/memory-wall.html>.
The general idea that there are programs where memory latency is the
main contributor to run-time is not wrong. It seems to me that, for
general-purpose CPUs, the proportion of such programs is getting
smaller these days, because the relative speed of CPUs and memory
stays the same, but caches become bigger over time.
Another idea, which was not meant at all by the Wulf&McKee paper is
that there are memory-bandwidth-limited programs, where a large
proportion of the run-time is spent transferring data between the CPU
and memory. The proportion of such programs may be rising, because
CPUs gain more cores (slowly), wider SIMD units, and (GP)GPUs, and
that seems to eat bandwidth faster than the bandwidth grows from
having faster and wider memory interfaces.
In any case, there are a lot of programs that are CPU-bound, and for
those a faster CPU is helpful.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 03:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) |
| Message-ID | <d56f0bc4-3cfd-437a-a7d9-59733526b035@g4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16283 |
On Oct 15, 10:56 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> writes: > >The memory wall is > >not something I made up. > > No, it's something that William Wulf and Sally McKee made up. And > their technical arguments were wrong, and I debunked them in > <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/memory-wall.html>. > > The general idea that there are programs where memory latency is the > main contributor to run-time is not wrong. It seems to me that, for > general-purpose CPUs, the proportion of such programs is getting > smaller these days, because the relative speed of CPUs and memory > stays the same, but caches become bigger over time. > > Another idea, which was not meant at all by the Wulf&McKee paper is > that there are memory-bandwidth-limited programs, where a large > proportion of the run-time is spent transferring data between the CPU > and memory. The proportion of such programs may be rising, because > CPUs gain more cores (slowly), wider SIMD units, and (GP)GPUs, and > that seems to eat bandwidth faster than the bandwidth grows from > having faster and wider memory interfaces. > > In any case, there are a lot of programs that are CPU-bound, and for > those a faster CPU is helpful. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs:http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard:http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2012:http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/ If a cache is not a solution for slow memory, then what is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 12:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) |
| Message-ID | <2012Oct15.145046@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #16284 |
Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> writes:
>If a cache is not a solution for slow memory, then what is it?
Who said it isn't?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-15 14:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) |
| Message-ID | <64303023.ssRThWHLBy@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16283 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>The memory wall is >>not something I made up. > > No, it's something that William Wulf and Sally McKee made up. And > their technical arguments were wrong, and I debunked them in > <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/memory-wall.html>. Well, their arguments were wrong in so far that you can move a sufficient large "window" of memory (the cache) close enough to the CPU to overcome the latency problem. And that external memory becomes faster with roughly the same pace as CPUs become faster. > In any case, there are a lot of programs that are CPU-bound, and for > those a faster CPU is helpful. Given enough fast caches. The memory wall is not something insurmountable, but something you can overcome - given enough caches and enough bandwidth to enough memory. I'm not arguing against *that*. The memory hierarchy is the most important part of a CPU. -- 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 | 2012-10-19 00:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74ef599d-82ec-4f93-8229-f7e48e8b5aa2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16253 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:24:44 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > rickman wrote: > > > Thanks for your explanation. I'm not clear how four stacks with one > > > ALU (I'm assuming here since you haven't mentioned more) > > > > I've mentioned VLIW, didn't I? I haven't mentioned "ALU" at all. VLIW > > doesn't have a "humpty dumpty" meaning you can define as you like it: > > They are four stacks with four ALUs, that's the whole point of the > > exercise. I don't think I have to mention everything about the 4stack > > processor in every posting I make; you can still read it up. Google for > > "4stack", and you'll still find my old web page. m( > > > > > gives a big > > > advantage. But that is what it is and if you aren't working in that > > > direction I guess it is not likely to pay off benefits. > > > > It wasn't the kind of CPU I needed for the work I did in the > > semiconductor industry in the past, that's why I created the b16 instead > > - most tasks need surprisingly little computation power. And to get the > > 4stack off and running as a commercial product (rather than just a > > thesis paper) requires too much funding - millions. And even though you > > don't agree with my CPU and memory generalization: The memory wall is > > not something I made up. And the difficulties to program a VLIW didn't > > go away. > > > > > I don't agree with your CPU vs. memory generalization. Yes, the GA144 > > > is limited by its memory architecture, but that is a limitation, not a > > > disqualification. > > > > Well, it is a pretty absurd limitation. Apart from the hearing aid, I > > haven't seen anything commercial that really uses this product. And the > > hearing aid would probably have been better off with a full custom > > solution. > > > > For the b16 tasks I made, I found that anything less than 2k of memory > > is too little. Ease of programming is important; you add a CPU to your > > chip because it is easier to program than Verilog. Making something > > deliberately difficult to program (as the GA144 is) means that its > > target audience are students with ample spare time who like to solve > > some puzzles. Not engineers who like to make a product in a limited > > time. Ease of programming *is* important. > > > > > As I have said before, the GA144 is not a processor > > > to be compared to the IA64 or the high end ARMs. It can't do the job > > > they can do and they can't do the jobs the GA144 can do. It's that > > > simple, they are apples and oranges... or should be to everyone other > > > than Gavino. > > > > I honestly don't know anything the GA144 is really good at. It is > > difficult to program. It is cornering itself into a small niche of the > > few algorithms that don't need memory (64 words is more like "no > > memory", because that's shared between program and data). The CPU core > > it uses would be quite good for all these little tasks where you don't > > need much computing power, but you also don't have much electric power. > > Let's put it that way: Chuck presented the c18 (the core that after some > > iterations went into the GA144) on EuroForth 2001 in Dagstuhl. I wrote > > the b16 in Verilog over the Christmas holidays, inspired by Chucks work. > > Four months later, we started the first product to put it into - a > > deviation of it, because as it is easy to adapt to the actual > > requirements, we did that. > > > > That's how commercially viable solutions look like. Not a solution > > looking for a problem, but a solution that naturally fits the problems > > customers have. I simply don't see that with GA144. Chuck is aiming at > > high performance and low power, something others attack successfully > > with modern processes instead. If he was aiming at medium performance > > and ultra-low-power, he would have a product. His power budget for the > > 144 cores is in the same order of magnitude as a high-end ARM with > > GPGPU, and those are designed to scale with quite a range of power > > requirements (dynamically). And please look at the figures: These high- > > end ARMs with GPGPU can do considerably more than GA144, they are > > cheaper than a GA144 (because they are filling fabs - really, entire > > fabs; this is big business), and it requires *less* external components > > to make them run (they are SoCs, all you need is a crystal and a bit of > > power management outside - and memory). Plus they are much easier to > > program. > > > > Chucks GA144 isn't an apple. But it isn't an orange, either. Nor is it > > a banana. It might be some decorative pumpkin, colorful, with warts on > > the outside, and hollow inside. GA144 is Chucks "burn the 125 million > > dollars the Moore patent portfolio generated" project. Unfortunately, > > Chuck doesn't even have that money. If you make a deal with the devil > > (and patent trolls totally qualify as devils), all the gold the devil > > gave you for your soul will evaporate at dawn. That's how it works, > > it's not just a fairy tale. > > > > -- > > Bernd Paysan > > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > > http://bernd-paysan.de/ so can you or any forth group if they secured funding from a government or private consortium produce a nice chip? Something to give ARM and amd and intel a run for thier money?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 21:53 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <puOdnUC9d7pAmxzNnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16475 |
On 10/18/12 9:10 PM, gavino_himself wrote: > so can you or any forth group if they secured funding from a government or private consortium produce a nice chip? Something to give ARM and amd and intel a run for thier money? > Yes. However, producing a chip is only the first step toward a product, the development of which will also be expensive. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-19 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f71c555f-c8e8-4a51-b21a-e95b1a7be25a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16481 |
On Friday, October 19, 2012 12:53:01 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/18/12 9:10 PM, gavino_himself wrote: > > > > > so can you or any forth group if they secured funding from a government or private consortium produce a nice chip? Something to give ARM and amd and intel a run for thier money? > > > > > > > Yes. However, producing a chip is only the first step toward a product, > > the development of which will also be expensive. > > > > Cheers, > > Elizabeth > > > > -- > > ================================================== > > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH > > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 > > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 > > Los Angeles, CA 90045 > > http://www.forth.com > > > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > > applications since 1973." > > ================================================== web server with dynamic content all u need everyone speaks HTML!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 22:18 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <sbGdnaYf4a1QkRzNnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16483 |
On 10/18/12 10:00 PM, gavino_himself wrote: > On Friday, October 19, 2012 12:53:01 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/18/12 9:10 PM, gavino_himself wrote: >> >> >> >>> so can you or any forth group if they secured funding from a government or private consortium produce a nice chip? Something to give ARM and amd and intel a run for thier money? >> >> Yes. However, producing a chip is only the first step toward a product, >> >> the development of which will also be expensive. > > > web server with dynamic content all u need everyone speaks HTML!! > Yes, but writing the software for that is a major project, even in Forth. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-19 09:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <508115d6.89558114@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #16475 |
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:10:15 -0700 (PDT), gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> wrote: >so can you or any forth group if they secured funding from a >government or private consortium produce a nice chip? Something >to give ARM and amd and intel a run for thier money? Yes ... but why? There are already plenty of unsuccessful 32 and 64 bit CPU cores to choose from. It's an unfortunate truth that no language-specific chip has been commercially successful. If you want a two-stack machine to be successful, you'll have to make sure that it runs code well from C and the Pasgol languages. With good optimising Forth compilers, there are very few conditions under which a stack machine CPU has a measurable advantage. Others have told me that a stack machine is a substitute for a good code generator. As you have been told many times before, web servers in Forth are already available, e.g. PowerNet from MPE. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web