🚀 go-pugleaf

       This is a response to message 8903 about the INMOS Transputer vs.
     other types of processors.  I'm not going to include it here and
     hope you can just call it up and read it.

        Anyway, arn't you all missing the point by analysing the "MIPS"
     rating of these processors and using the results to compare the
     chips?  I followed the Transputer for a couple of years, but became
     dicouraged because the actual pricing of the component has never
     even been close to those pro-offered by INMOS at their Transputer
     seminars.  What attracted me to the Transputer was the parallel 
     processing capabilities it supports.  This is what the Transputer
     is all about, and none of the other systems discussed support
     this type of capability.

         At the current time I find the University of Lowell's (Mass.)
     image processing board to be more intresting than the Transputer.
     First of all, they (claim to) already have the system working,
     and we're talking 35 MIPS (I mean it will execute 35 million 
     instructions each second) and this INCLUDES MULTIPLY (17x17bits).
     The system is based upon NEC parts, and basically consists of
     up to seven 5 MIPS processors which operate in a bucket brigade,
     and one chip to handle most aspects of communications, including
     direct access to the Amiga memory.
        Furthermore NEC claims it will release a 10 MIPS processor 
     version before the end of the year, resulting in 70 MIPS.  With
     multiply on every cycle that seems damn powerful to me!  Only
     problem is the system looks tricky to program.

        As far as the Transputer goes, I think the Transputer language,
     OCCAM, would be a natural for the amiga.  It supports multi-tasking
     at the language level, and looks to be fairly complete.

                                        Wade.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM