Article View: comp.sys.transputer
Article #2294Re: What makes Transputer interesting
From: Dave Haynie
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1988 20:29
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1988 20:29
69 lines
3838 bytes
3838 bytes
in article <6048@lanl.gov>, jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) says:
> Summary: Cheap, fast, powerful, cheap, cheap, (I like cheap)
> The transputer is fast (about the equivalent of a vax or sun 3 now,
> and getting faster).
The comparison was with a 68030 or 80386, not a vanilla 68000. For
integer processing speed, a 68000 isn't quite a VAX 750. The only
T800's I've seen benchmarked IN A SYSTEM process integers in the
VAX 780-785 range, like a medium performance 68020 system (which is
just what a smaller Sun 3 is). 68030 systems outperform 8xxx VAXen
in most integer benchmarks.
> The communications are very fast, have very low startup overheads,
> and operate without any need of the CPU after setup.
Any DMA driven communications channel will operate without CPU
intervention after setup.
> The (T800) transputer has on-chip floating-point support.
That's probably it's nicest feature. The on-chip floating point i
pretty fast, though it's a small set of operations. You'd have to
go to a Weitek chipset for that kind of performance on a 68xxx or
80xxx. Motorola's 88100 has an even better on-chip floating point
scheme, using separate execution units for addition and multiplication.
> The context-switch time on a transputer makes the 68xxx look like
> a pig.
ONLY IF you can use the hardware defined task model. In that case,
it's pretty nice, since it'll actually wait for a minimum of task
state before swapping. If you wanted to run a standard operating
system on the thing, you'd be in trouble. And the 68030's interface
to memory makes the T800's "look like a pig", to coin a phrase.
> The transputer is RISC technology. The small instruction set means
> that it's fairly easy to port compilers to it (although INMOS seems
> to be real stodgy about realizing that the real world wants C and
> FORTRAN).
The Transputer isn't RISC at all. About the only thing it has in common
with true RISC-methods CPUs is that it's rather small. There aren't
any registers; RISC chips typically have a minimum of 32, some close to
200. A good portion of Transputer instructions are slow, microcoded
instructions; RISC chips use hardwired instructions that execute in or
near single cycles. Transputers don't have cache memory; all RISC
chip COUNT on caches. Transputers don't have memory management, which
is crucial to running protected operating systems.
I think if they get low cost enough, Transputers will make excellent
satillite controller in a 68xxx or similar system, what with the on-chip
RAM and math and all. They're also well suited to certain kinds of
parallel problems that lend themselves well to loose coupling. Tim King's
company Perihelion does offer a C compiler for the things that's not
supposed to be all that bad; certainly more palatable to most software
people than Occam. So I think Transputers have their place, but that
place isn't the place currently occupied by most CISC and RISC CPUs, that
of main processor.
> _ /| The opinions here are my own, and even I don't agree with me :-)
> \'o.O' I am not an employee of LANL, I just use their computers.
> =(___)= I stole the .sig file, but I did not shoot no deputeeee.
> U Bill sez: AAAAK! PHHHT! jxdl@lanl.gov
--
Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy
Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<5255@cbmvax.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!davehReferences:
<6048@lanl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: What makes Transputer interesting Message-ID: <5255@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 16 Nov 88 20:29:46 GMT References: <6048@lanl.gov> Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 69