From: dow@idtg.UUCP (Keith Dow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware
Subject: Re: New viking sparc processor?
Keywords: superscalar, MHz, Viking, Alpha
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:18:32 GMT
Organization: Integrated Device Technology, Santa Clara

>>Probably not too far off considering the chip works at 40Mhz.
>>
>
>Megaherz ratings are becoming less reliable as more superscalar
>chips enter the realm of reality.  Viking is a superscalar chip,
>as are at least some of the chips mentioned in your message.


I took that into account.

>How do you have Specmark performance for a chip that is still under 
>development, the details of which are still not publicly disclosed?

Several magazines have published data.  Also, I live and work in "Silicon
Valley".  It is a small place where information gets around.

Also, the chip is not under development.  They have had at least two tape
outs.  I would call it debugging mode.


>>I believe the Sparcstation-2 is 27Specmarks.  If the 486 puts out 16Specs
>>at 33Mhz, doesn't it put out 25Spec at 50Mhz?  Perhaps you can clarify
>>the issue.  Maybe Intel isn't that far away now? 
>>
>Consider the MHz and the the Specmark numbers.  You're talking about
>SPARC, a superscalar chip, versus the 486.  There are "envelopes" that
>are now being pushed back (as in the past) regarding raw clock cycles
>a chip can operate with.  Given that that envelope is feeling tighter
>and tighter these days (until a revolution in chip _material_
>technology comes about), superscalar design is where chip designers
>and manufacturers will find their performance leverage.
>
>Cycle for cycle, THAT will determine the performance leader of the next
>few years.






Actually I was talking about two things.  The 486 versus the Sparc-2.
Neither of which is super scalar.  Second, the 586 versus Viking.
Both maybe super-scalar. We will see.




Second, there are several constraints on the speed of IC's.  I won't go
into them, but the biggest constraint is getting equipment that can build
chips.  Speeding up silicon by a factor of ten in the next 10 years won't
be too tough.





I don't doubt that super-scalar chips will dominate in the future.  My only
question is, how did Sun design such a bad chip?  At 60 Specmarks, the HP,
non-superscalar chip and the R4000 non-superscalar chip beat it.  Also, they
used what should be a faster process than either the process used to make the
R4000 or the HP chip.  Hopefully they learned not to make an Edsel again.








>>>(All through, of course, remember that both ISA and EISA are terrible
>>>on IO, not something which comes into SPEC).
>>
>>I don't know of any Sparc stations with expansion boards in them, so
>>the issue is moot.

We just put in more memory.  Eight megabytes costs about $300.  Add more
if needed. 

>The issue is not moot, regardless of whether you know of SSs with
>expansion boards in them.  The various I/O interfaces, which are
>usually located on the system board, still operate on the Sun SBus.
>Similarly, many PC brands, Compaq (an excellent performer) being a
>notable example, have video, serial, parallel and other interfaces on
>the system board (on the EISA bus).  When you discuss expansion
>boards, you are bringing in variables which may or may not have
>anything to do with the merits of the bus.  For example, the Mylex
>32-bit caching synchronous SCSI disk controller will probably
>outperform any other controller (SCSI, ESDI, etc.)  you can plug into
>that bus or come already installed on the system board.

I believe an earlier poster disagrees with you.  I will let you two
argue it out.  Like I said, if your machine is slow, add more memory
or buy a faster machine.   
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware