Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #139Intel Micro 2000 (was:Re: "586" rumours?)
From: Thomas Hoberg
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:15
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:15
40 lines
2759 bytes
2759 bytes
I remember reading something in BYTE some years ago about Intels Project 2000 (The article was called "A talk with Intel", I believe. The baseline was, that a chip for the year 2000 would include more than one processor and big caches. When you look at todays workstation, you'll find a CPU+FPU(+Cache and so forth) and a graphics accellerator and a DSP for sound and communications. There are in my opinion right now two things that limit graphics accellerators performance and versatility: 1) CPU <-> GX throughput, 2) memory bandwidth. I see the versatility of graphics accellerators hamperd by the fact, that they a) either work only on dedicated frame buffer memory or b) have to do DMA on *physical* addresses. A graphics accellerator included within the CPU would not have that problem. It might have a separate set of address/data lines for the frame buffer and use the normal CPU bus to do graphics operations on offscreen areas. So including a RISC based graphics accellerator on the same die as a 386 compatible unit seems like a good idea to me. The same goes for a DSP unit. While you are add it you might add another 386 unit or a 860 like floating point pipeline. To make things work, you might include some kind of (big) local cache, that can be used as a scratch-pad area for communication between the differnt units. You might partition that scratch-pad and put a cross-bar like interface before it, so that memory contention between the diffrent units for the scratch pad area is low. Remember that once you go off the chip you loose throughput bad. I find it hard to believe that people find it so difficult to imagine what might go into the P5 or it's successors--the path is pretty clear. Like CPU's integrated that whole bunch of LSI logic that made up the CPU of a PDP-11/45, tomorrows CPUs should integrate all those pin monsters that we see in a NextStation or a Sparcstation (to make an even bigger pin monster--but they are probably working on interconnect, too). Comments anyone? --- Thomas M. Hoberg | Internet: tmh@first.gmd.de 1000 Berlin 41 | tmh@cs.tu-berlin.de Wielandstr. 4 | Germany | BITNET: tmh@tub.bitnet +49-30-851-50-21 |
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<TMH.92Jul31051529@keks.first.gmd.de>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!gmdtub!bigfoot!tmhReferences:
<1992Jul29.100549.1@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca> <1992Jul30.160656.28641@crd.ge.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!gmdtub!bigfoot!tmh From: tmh@keks.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Subject: Intel Micro 2000 (was:Re: "586" rumours?) Message-ID: <TMH.92Jul31051529@keks.first.gmd.de> Date: 31 Jul 92 03:15:29 GMT References: <1992Jul29.100549.1@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca> <1992Jul30.160656.28641@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@bigfoot.first.gmd.de Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin Lines: 41 In-reply-to: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM's message of 30 Jul 92 16:06:56 GMT