On 1/22/00 11:34 AM, Vaughan Pratt said: >Code morphing for other platforms is of course a possibility, but it >is clear that the Crusoe processors have been tuned to perform well on >x86 code. I would say the "initial Crusoe processors have been tuned..." The two processors announced have significant hardware differences (implied by the white paper, anyway). I see no reason to believe that future processors won't also have significant hardware differences. An obvious one would be a version that could handle 3 Molecules simultaneously. Since the code morphing processes goes over chunks of code (instead of just one instruction at a time) it could easily slice-and-dice to produce three molecules that can be processes simultaneously. This would create a processor slightly less than 3 times as fast as the current generation at the same megahertz without blowing out the transistor (and power budget) with relativly little design work. (A lot less than it takes Intel to add another instruction pipeline to the pentium and deal with the resultant issues in branching and out-of-order execution. (can I just call that oooe?)) > We have no idea what it is capable of for other ISA's, but >one thing is clear: morphing for the 128-bit floating point available on >most other workstation architectures isn't going to work with any decent >speed without an expansion of the Crusoe's floating-point hardware to >beyond the 80 bits they have told us about. I think this is a logical extention of the product line. The code morphine allows them to pursue whatever works best without worrying about backward compatibility. In fact its the pentiums backward compatibility (it has a 386 cpu on board with the risc cpu) that has hampered it-- that 386 subprocessor was limited in its design to maintain compatibility with the 286. The 286 was limited in its design to maintain compatibility with the 186 & 8088. The 8088 was limited in its design to maintain compatibility with the 8086. The 8086 was limited in its design to maintain compatibility with the 8085 and 8080. The 8080 was limited in its design to maintain compatibility with the 8008. The 8008 was limited in its design to maintain compatibility with the 4004. The 4004 was arguably the first ever microprocessor. Now some jumps and changes that broke backward compatibility occured here, but generally backward compatibility was a high prioirity thruout the x86 development history and limited what could be done. That's why the itanium is controversial-- its a VLIW processor, not a CISC one. BitGeek
From Comp.sys.wearables Newsgroup Archive (CSW)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail