On 14 Oct, 15:58, Mike Harrison <m...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> w=
rote:
> >On 13 Oct, 20:42, Eric Smith <e...@brouhaha.com> wrote:
> >> Bob wrote about XMOS:
>
> >> > They seem far too fixated on doing everything in software, things li=
ke
> >> > ethernet where there is no point shoveling bytes in software if
> >> > hardware can take care of it.
> >> Leon wrote:
> >> > They are supplying free libraries for all the usual peripheral
> >> > functions. Doing stuff like that in software is much cheaper than
> >> > using hardware, and easier in many ways.
>
> >> Been there, done that, and it's not cheaper or easier when you
> >> consider the overall system cost impact, not just the "benefit" of
> >> leaving out the hardware block. =A0That was the path Scenix/Ubicom wen=
t
> >> down, calling it "virtual peripherals", and it was not very
> >> successful. =A0Ubicom has since added hardware for Ethernet, USB,
> >> etc. to their most recent parts. =A0The reality is that a hardware
> >> Ethernet MAC costs less than the total system cost impact of the
> >> software alternative.
>
> >> Eric
>
> >Not if you have four 400 MIPS cores on the chip, each with 64 bits of
> >I/O, 64k of RAM, with 3.2 Gbit/s comms links between cores and 32
> >threads per core, with switching between threads in one clock. If the
> >software is free, it is a very cost-effective solution, especially as
> >the chips will be very cheap.
>
> >Leon
>
> How cheap? Have you seen any pricing info yet?

Not yet. They have said that they will cost as little as $1 each.
That's for the single-core chip, presumably. 400 MIPS for $1 isn't
bad!

Leon

In article <2...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 <s...@coppice.org> wrote:
 <SNIP>
>
>Going to market with an impractical product is much worse than toying
>and figuring out its impractical before you spend the big bucks. I
>remember when the Inmos people kept trying to sell their filter chip
>into a board I was doing. The board's BOM target was about 130 pounds
>(more or less met in the end), while their chip in 100k volume was
>something like 800 pounds. I guess the salesman had few other leads to
>follow if he kept wasting his time on us.

What is "impractical" about the first device to manage doing the first
quantum chromatic calculation?
What was "impractical" about the interactive graphical displays of oil
wells on the Meico's at Shell Rijswijk?
(Hint, the alternative at the time was tying up Shell's Cray. The
transputer boxes where an order of magnitude less expensive.)

I don't argue with the lack of commercial prowess though.
If they just had managed to keep up with increasing clock
speeds, instead of going to 9000, they might still be in business.

>
>Regards,
>Steve

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst