🚀 go-pugleaf

Rowan Hughes writes:
>I'm a little puzzled by the discussions involving vector vs. risc s-scalar.

Vector machines are not really SIMD;  they have parallelization through
the pipeline, but the bottom line is that the do not process a whole
vector "at once".  The pipeline only means that each pipe spits out
a float result each cycle (or two, in the case of a mul-add).  Super
scalar machines can also produce a result per cycle.

What I am confused about is why superscalar machines aren't seen as
clearly superceding vector architectures.  Like vector architetures,
they use instruction overlap to produce a result (or two) per cycle.
The difference is that the compiler or the programmer must
arrange things so that the proper overlap is possible, whereas with
the vector machines you just issue a single vector instruction, i.e.
the particular kind of instruction overlap is hard-wired into the
silicon (or GaAs).  That would seem to make vector architectures
clearly less versatile than superscalar.  Perhaps the restrictions
make the hardware easier to build; I imagine they certainly make
the compilers easier to write, but progress seems to have been
pretty good on RISC compilers. A notable exception is none of 
them I have ever seen will automatically do things like strip
mining and unroll-and-jam for you.

As far as I can see, insofar as current vector computers have
some advantages over superscalar, the performance differences have
more to do with memory bandwidth than processor architecture.  I'd
be happy to hear other comments on this, though.
.