Leon wrote:
> On 11 Oct, 20:25, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>>>>> The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>>>>> I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
>>>>> out. David May designed them both, of course.
>>>>> Leon
>>>>> leon...@btinternet.com
>>>> Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half
>>>> thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\
>>>> Steve
>>> The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology
>>> that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to
>>> universities and research establishments, because there was nothing
>>> else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their
>>> own fab!
>> I met a guy from the transputer design team down in the Bryce Canyon
>> (here in the US). Unfortunately that company seemed to have lacked
>> marketing savvy just like Plessey and many others. Great products (well,
>> most of them) but that doesn't get you anywhere unless you can nail the
>> next step, the deal. It's probably similar to engineer-driven car
>> manufacturers like Borgward. A seasoned car mechanic here in the US told
>> me that these were among the most well designed and quality built cars
>> ever. But ...
> 
> 
> After they married, my brother used his wife's Borgward Isabella. It
> wasn't bad, apart from the slippery bench seat in the front. ...


That had a purpose back then. Not exactly one that had to do with 
driving and it was only useful if you had a girlfriend in the car ;-)


>                                                      ... I didn't
> close the door properly once, slid across the seat when he cornered
> rather fast and nearly fell out of the door when it opened. Cars
> didn't have seat belts in those days, of course.
> 

On my pa's old Chrysler the whole frame would torque and warp a little 
at high speeds. At around 100mph (in Germany where that was legal) the 
driver side door made *BANG* and popped open one notch. Later it turned 
out some really clever engineer had positioned the battery right above a 
frame member. The occasional acid drips from there slowly ate it up.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

On Oct 11, 2:01=A0am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>
> I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
> out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> Leon
> leon...@btinternet.com

Looks interesting but doesn't look to be a number-crunching device.
It's general purpose for Ethernet type applications.


Hardy

On 11 Oct, 20:33, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 6:43=A0am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 9:01=A0pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications=
.
>
> > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer cam=
e
> > > > out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> > > > Leon
> > > > leon...@btinternet.com
>
> > > Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a hal=
f
> > > thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\
>
> > > Steve
>
> > The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology
> > that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to
> > universities and research establishments, because there was nothing
> > else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their
> > own fab!
>
> > Leon
>
> Yes at the time it was way ahead. Trouble is that there was not many
> people who had given thought to paralel computing back then - even now
> it is experimental on the whole and not mainstream.
> Another machine of the time was made by Linn Products who make Hi-Fi..
>
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3D381711.381716
>
> =A0It was a small-talk machine called Recusiv =A0- fully Object Orientate=
d
> - again way ahead of its time. People had just started using C and
> were still using Fortran.
> Assembler was the only low level language available.
>
> Hardy

I remember the Rekursiv. I even asked them if they would sell me some
chips. They would only sell me one of their boards, which were rather
expensive.

Leon

On 11 Oct, 20:53, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2:01=A0am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>
> > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
> > out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> > Leon
> > leon...@btinternet.com
>
> Looks interesting but doesn't look to be a number-crunching device.
> It's general purpose for Ethernet type applications.

Look at it as a very fast and cheap 32-bit scalable processor.

Leon

Leon <l...@btinternet.com> writes:

> On 11 Oct, 20:53, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2:01 am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>>
>> > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>>
>> > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
>> > out. David May designed them both, of course.
>>
>> > Leon
>> > leon...@btinternet.com
>>
>> Looks interesting but doesn't look to be a number-crunching device.
>> It's general purpose for Ethernet type applications.
>
> Look at it as a very fast and cheap 32-bit scalable processor.

I couldn't find a datasheet on the XMOS CPU. What's its architecture?
Does it have 16 bit datapaths? What size is the multiplier/ALU? Can
it do, e.g., 1600 32x32->80 fixed-point multiplies per second?
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882                %  
%%%% <y...@ieee.org>           % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

On 11 Oct, 23:37, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > On 11 Oct, 20:53, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 2:01=A0am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> >> > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>
> >> > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
> >> > out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> >> > Leon
> >> > leon...@btinternet.com
>
> >> Looks interesting but doesn't look to be a number-crunching device.
> >> It's general purpose for Ethernet type applications.
>
> > Look at it as a very fast and cheap 32-bit scalable processor.
>
> I couldn't find a datasheet on the XMOS CPU. What's its architecture?
> Does it have 16 bit datapaths? What size is the multiplier/ALU? Can
> it do, e.g., 1600 32x32->80 fixed-point multiplies per second?
> --
> % =A0Randy Yates =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0% "Rollin' and riding=
 and slippin' and
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0% =A0sliding, it's magic."
> %%% 919-577-9882 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0% =A0
> %%%% <ya...@ieee.org> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 % 'Living' Thing', *A New World=
 Record*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

https://products.xmos.com/system/files/XS1-G4-PB-080723.pdf

https://products.xmos.com/system/files/XS1-G4-512BGA-DS-87.pdf

It's got a 32 x 32 bit -> 64-bit MAC

Leon

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT), Leon <l...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>On 11 Oct, 20:33, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 6:43 am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>> > The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology
>> > that was available. 
...
>> Another machine of the time was made by Linn Products who make Hi-Fi..
>>
>> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=381711.381716
>>
>>  It was a small-talk machine called Recusiv  - fully Object Orientated
>> - again way ahead of its time. People had just started using C and
>> were still using Fortran.
>> Assembler was the only low level language available.
>>
>> Hardy
>
>I remember the Rekursiv. I even asked them if they would sell me some
>chips. They would only sell me one of their boards, which were rather
>expensive.

There were only ever about 30 chipsets (from LSI Logic); if one had been
sold individually it would have left a board empty.

In any case, a prototype board for two 299 pin PGAs (at the time, LSI
said, the largest in Europe) and a 223 pin would have been decidedly
non-trivial.

The price of £25k for a board was regrettable, but without a much larger
company behind it, there wasn't going to be any other option.

A second version would have been far more cost-effective but never made
it past the initial design stages.

- Brian

On Oct 11, 1:43=A0am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 9:01=A0pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>
> > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
> > > out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> > > Leon
> > > leon...@btinternet.com
>
> > Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half
> > thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\
>
> > Steve
>
> The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology
> that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to
> universities and research establishments, because there was nothing
> else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their
> own fab!
>
> Leon

The Transputer wasn't ahead of its time. It was brain dead. A chip
only effective in substantial arrays selling for hundreds of pounds
per device was a dead duck from the start. The only people who could
seriously look at it for substantial arrays were military
applications. However, when approached about military parts Transputer
gave evasive answers.

There was nothing innovative about the design of the Transputer. The
device as it was supposed to be (i.e. separate comms and execution
planes), rather than the crippled one they shipped, was similar to
designs several people in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) were
toying with at that time. The others did not proceed because the
economics looked so wrong.

On 13 Oct, 03:52, ste...@coppice.org wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:43=A0am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 9:01=A0pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications=
.
>
> > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer cam=
e
> > > > out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> > > > Leon
> > > > leon...@btinternet.com
>
> > > Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a hal=
f
> > > thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\
>
> > > Steve
>
> > The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology
> > that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to
> > universities and research establishments, because there was nothing
> > else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their
> > own fab!
>
> > Leon
>
> The Transputer wasn't ahead of its time. It was brain dead. A chip
> only effective in substantial arrays selling for hundreds of pounds
> per device was a dead duck from the start. The only people who could
> seriously look at it for substantial arrays were military
> applications. However, when approached about military parts Transputer
> gave evasive answers.
>
> There was nothing innovative about the design of the Transputer. The
> device as it was supposed to be (i.e. separate comms and execution
> planes), rather than the crippled one they shipped, was similar to
> designs several people in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) were
> toying with at that time. The others did not proceed because the
> economics looked so wrong.

It was used very widely ar the time, because there wasn't anything
comparable for sale. I even sold several of my modules to hobbyists
and university students - at =A3500 each!

Some of the customers for my 16 module system were prestigious outfits
such as BAe, Plessey Roke Manor, GCHQ and Oxford University PRG. It
delivered 320 MIPS with very good floating-point performance at a
comparatively low price (about =A313,000 with T800 chips).

I even had inquiries from Russia, indirectly, but it was embargoed
because of the performance. I did once apply for an export license for
Russia, to see what happened, and actually got it! I contacted the DTI
about it; they got very excited, admitted thay had made a mistake and
insisted that I returned the document. I'm quite sure that Russia did
get the technology, though. I heard on the grapevine that there were
companies in Finland that acted as intermediaries.

Leon

On Oct 10, 2:01 pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit.
>
> The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications.
>
> I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came
> out. David May designed them both, of course.
>
> Leon
> leon...@btinternet.com

I briefly saw XMOS at a trade show in London.
They seem far too fixated on doing everything in software, things like
ethernet where there is no point shoveling bytes in software if
hardware can take care of it.

The quarter VGA touchscreen on the dev kit has novelty value.

I'm not sure the performance justifies the effort of using somthing
so unusual in most cases.

I'd want to make a single lifetime buy of processors if I used
these in a product. Far too likely to dissapear without trace.

Bob