🚀 go-pugleaf

I am going to risk the wrath of Mr. Case so that I might reply to Mr.
Mashey's "marketing counter-measures" (<19088@winchester.mips.COM>)
which was posted around May 9th.  All of the included comments are Mr.
Mashey's.

In reference to the number of software applications running on SPARC:
 >Counting applications is even harder than counting mips-numbers.
 >...but counting total numbers is very akin to counting average-mips numbers.
 >I'm tracking down some current data on this and will post something next week
Yes, counting applications is a somewhat esoteric process, usually
warped to benefit the person that is doing the counting.  Please
remember that when someone quotes the number of applications running
on MIPS processors, those applications may or may not be portable
across MIPS based workstations.  This is largely due to a major
difference in byte sex between several major vendors.

It would appear that the MIPS/DEC alliance has caused a real dilemma
for companies designing MIPS based workstations.  Do you try and be
compatible with the closed system philosophy of DEC?  Do you try and
be compatible with the MIPS M/series workstations?  Or, do you try and
establish your own standard?

In reference to the open license philosophy of SPARC:
 >I observe that there are relatively few world-class, leading-edge, proven,
 >high-performance VLSI microprocessor design teams around, who can do good
 >architecture AND implementation.
I have to agree with this observation and point out that Sun has given
several leading-edge, proven VLSI design houses a big break by giving
them a good architecture to start with and improve upon.  Sun's
philosophy is to let these world-class companies compete with their
various offerings of SPARC processors.  I keep forgetting how bad
competition is for the electronics industry.  Without this terrible
competition we would still be paying >$10,000 for personal computers.

On Cypress:
 >33MHz parts were supposed to be sampling almost a year ago, and
 >certainly were supposed to be in production 3Q/4Q 88.
The Cypress CY7C601 WAS sampled almost a year ago and WAS in
production by Q3 of 88.  Yes, the full chipset is not yet available,
but Cypress does currently offer an IU, FPU and FPC.  The MMU, cache
control, cache-tag (CY7C604) and the cache RAMs (CY7C157) will be
available VERY SHORTLY!  Much to my disappointment, Sun did not
announce a 33Mhz 601 based system with the 25Mhz system.  I can say
with certainty that other companies are not as far behind Sun as Mr.
Mashey would lead you to believe.  Look for SEVERAL 33Mhz 601 based
system to be announced late summer/early fall.

On high frequency systems: 
 >FACT: R3000s first sampled about a year ago; at least 2 companies
 >(MIPS & SGI) have shipped 25MHz systems, as early as 4Q88.
It would be interesting to compare the total number of 25Mhz R3000
systems shipped to the total number of 25Mhz SPARC based system in Q4
of 89.  Would you rather be supplying parts to MIPS & SGI or just Sun?
I'd take the latter.

On multiprocessing (CY7C605):
 >(FACT)  Note that it is not shipping yet.  Note that it seems different
 >from the Reference MMU specified a while back, which is also different
 >from the ones Sun uses in most SPARC-based products.
Mr. Mashey should get a new copy of the reference MMU spec from Sun
and compare the new spec to the 604/605 descriptions.  Like many other
preliminary specs., the reference MMU underwent several revisions
before it finally became a full fledged spec.  Both the 604
(uniprocessing) and the 605 (multiprocessing) conform fully to the
SPARC reference MMU specification.  The reference MMU is different
than the MMU that Sun has been using in most of it's SPARC based
products.  I don't quite see the problem with this.  A well written
operating system only requires a change to a single driver to port it
to a new MMU.  This does not render applications unexecutable on
systems with different MMUs.

Mr. Mashey continues:
 >Presumably there will time for Cypress to make some money on these 
 >things before the Sun/TI BiCMOS thing obsoletes them....
If Mr. Mashey knows about the Sun/TI thing, Cypress must know about
the Sun/TI thing.  I guarantee that Cypress/ROSS would not be putting
forth the effort to design the 604 and 605 if there was not a proper
time and place for them in the market place.  

I think that Mr. Mashey failed to realize the power of multiprocessor
systems that utilize the 601 IU and the 604/605 CMU chips.  Arix Corp. has
announced multiprocessor systems for Q1 of 90 that are based on the
601/604 set. It is clear that all of Mr. Mashey's benchmarks and
extrapolations on future performance are based on uniprocessor
systems.  How will the 25Mhz R3000 stack up against a 4 processor
40Mhz 601 system?

Mr. Mashey pointed out that it is difficult to design systems that run
at 40Mhz, and his point is well taken.  Consider that the 25Mhz R3000
requires two bus transactions per clock cycle, effectively running the
bus at 50Mhz.  Even if MIPS could design a 40Mhz Rx000, could you
design a system that allows bus operations at 80Mhz?

One of the lures to the MIPS camp has been their very high performance
compilers that they have touted as the best in the industry.  I think
that Sun's new compilers will seriously challenge the MIPS compilers
as the best in the industry.  We should see some hard data on this soon.

Finally, Mr. Mashey brings up the question of other vendors producing
more SPARC based systems than Sun.  Is this important?  I think the
important assertion is that other vendors will be able to thrive
supplying the world with SPARC based systems.  Out of the companies
that are currently working on Sun clones, several may emerge to
dominate the low priced workstation market.  If the industry can
support Sun and several major clone manufacturers, it would appear
that at that point SPARC had become the industry standard for
workstations. 




-- 
-doug carmean                           ross!doug@cs.utexas.edu
-ROSS Technology, 7748 Hwy 290 West Suite 400, Austin, TX 78736
-Coming soon: Low Calorie Fusion