Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: dedicated vs general-purpose CPUs
Message-ID: <1240@ficc.UUCP>
Date: 9 Aug 88 20:02:08 GMT
References: <5254@june.cs.washington.edu> <76700032@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1216@nud.UUCP>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 22

In article <1216@nud.UUCP>, df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth) writes:
> Peter da Silva (peter@ficc.UUCP) writes:
> > Better to use a GP processor as your main CPU, and use a graphics library
> > that's implemented in hardware or software, whichever's cheaper. When you
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- NOTE
> > run out of MIPS, stick a graphics accelerator (like the Amiga Blitter)
> > in and pop in a new shared library.

> Yes, that does work, but what Henry has been saying is that when you
> run out of MIPS, stick in another GP processor as an additional main CPU.

Yes. Yes. Of course. If that's the cheapest way to go, then do it. If it's
not, then go whatever other way gives you more bang for the buck. If you
have your own silicon foundry and are already designing a bunch of custom
chips to get the part count down, then what do you think you'll find?

680[23]0s are *not* cheap chips.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation, sugar!ficc!peter.
"You made a TIME MACHINE out of a VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE?"
"Well, I couldn't afford another deLorean."
"But how do you ever get it up to 88 miles per hour????"