why the transputer is better

Article View: comp.sys.transputer

Article #2298

Back to comp.sys.transputer Previous Next

#2298

From: Ian Murphy
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1988 13:55

13 lines
952 bytes


I think it was a recent issue of Byte that had a review of parallel
processing systems (i could have the wrong magazine), and from a laymans point
of view the transputer came out on top due to its ability to expand to more
processors without loosing much processing power, what they said was that the
transputer had only about a 2% overhead due to communication compared to about
30% with other 'non parallel' systems.

If you want to find out more try the byte article, It was byte wasn't it??
somebodys run off with my issue so i can't check.

Ian

Technical Details

Message-ID: <8811150155.AA05129@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!IRUCCVAX.BITNET!CBWP8008

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!IRUCCVAX.BITNET!CBWP8008
From: CBWP8008@IRUCCVAX.BITNET (Ian Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
Subject: why the transputer is better
Message-ID: <8811150155.AA05129@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 14 Nov 88 13:55:00 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 13