Talk:Intel i860

message: The i860 was never superscalar -- it was quasi-VLIW.  I will leave this comment here for a while to elicit feedback, and then correct the commentary. gnetwerker - 12/29/04
:: Just saw this now -- some easier way to track comments would be nice. Anyway I'm not sure the two are as separate as you note, the term "superscalar" generally means "runs more than one instruction at once". I think the i860 certainly fits this definition. Of the two, VLIW is more restrictive, such that all VLIW processors are superscalar (or what's the point?!) while only a very few superscalar designs are VLIW. Maury 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: You note:
First, as noted above, the i860 was NOT Superscalar.
Well let's see what foldoc says:
A superscalar architecture is a uniprocessor that can execute two or more scalar operations in parallel.
Pretty clear so far. By this definition the i860 is definitely superscalar.
Some definitions include superpipelined and VLIW architectures; others do not.
So certainly the definition used in this article can apply.
Superscalar architectures (apart from superpipelined architectures) require multiple functional units, which may or may not be identical to each other.
The i860 certainly fits this description.
In some superscalar processors the order of instruction execution is determined statically (purely at compile-time), in others it is determined dynamically (partly at run time).
Once again, the i860 is defined by, at least, the loose definition.
I would claim that the common definition, and even some of the more pendantic ones, support the statement "the i860 was a superscalar processor". I can find no instances of a general definition that explicitly disagrees, all I can find are comments in the context of VLIW that say it's different. I don't think these definitions are either widely used, nor particularily useful.
If one does wish to claim VLIW is not superscalar, I'd really like to know what purpose that claim would serve. Since the general understanding of superscalar is more the one instruction at a time, VLIW implementations would always appear to be a subset (is there a counterexample? can their be?). Saying that VLIW machines are not superscalar would be like saying a Jeep isn't a car, because it only comes in wheel drive: you have to redefine "car" in order to make the definition work. And for what reason?
Moving on, I don't remember the article calling VLIW an extension of RISC. But even if it did, it's equally incorrect to claim that VLIW is, by definition, different (or competing). RISC is based on a small number of basic concepts:
* make memory access explicit; it's expensive, make the programmer known they're doing it and thereby try to avoid it
* use lots of registers instead, and make most instructions register-register only instead of providing lots of versions in microcode -- use that silicon for something else instead
It is for these reasons that the literature often tries to use the term load-store instead of RISC, as the later is misleading. 
I suppose it's entirely possible that someone could build a VLIW-based CISC design; that is, a CPU with lots of microcode, lots of addressing modes, and a VLIW instruction format.
The i860 certainly fit into this definition of RISC as far as I can tell. It is certainly fair to call the Merced a VLIW-RISC system, and it would seem the same is true for the i860. The only way to know for sure is to look at the addressing modes.
Maury 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No, I'm not just trolling

message: VLIW is not superscalar because if it were, every bitslice microcode processor out there would be "superscalar" -- it would have no meaning.  As I said already, and you have ignored, the reputable, published literature on the subject defines superscalar as I have.  The definitive work is "Superscalar Microprocessor Design", by Mike Johnson, Pentice-Hall, 1991.  On page 6, he says: "A superscalar processor ... allow[s] concurrent execution of instructions in the same pipeline stage ..." (emphasis in original).  If you choose the one-line definition from an on-line dictionary of no greater repute than Wikipedia, you demean both.
So let me repeat: I was on the i960 design team.  I was intimately acquainted with the i860 design and team.  Intel did not market or describe the i860 as superscalar.  The dominant experts in the field do not consider the i860 superscalar.  The distinction between superscalar and VLIW is a clear and important one (having to do with the trade-off between instruction decode complexity and fetch bandwidth/code expansion).  You are, quite simply, wrong.  If you, an apparent amateur with no specific qualification in the field, want to force this issue, then you reinforce the central complaint about Wikipedia -- it can never be trusted. -- Gnetwerker 08:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (as less than amateur) that you guys are pretty much splitting terminological hairs here. Nobody will take this entry as some kind of definitive reference. I don't think that this shows that Wikipedia cannot be trusted - just that one is well advised to check Talk page and source documents, if doing more than just idly browsing. Where are Talk pages in Britannica? :) --bonzi 21:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If You're Not Trolling, You're Just Plain Wrong

message: Link entitled "Intel i860 64-Bit Microprocessor Data Sheet" is down 87.234.92.102 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link down 

message: Just a note: XScale has been sold to Marvell 193.131.176.54 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XScale 

message: Where is (or should be) the wiki page for the i860 chipset? 195.38.110.188 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added as Template:Distinguish2; Alecv (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chipset 

message: Long blockquotes in the lead generally don't work. I would like to see it moved farther down, into the body.  Perhaps the quote can be summarized in fewer words in the lead, if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I recall that the i860 was internally clock doubled. If that can be verified, perhaps it should be added. Also, if it was released at the same time as the i486, was it the first internally clock-doubled Intel CPU? I ask because later i486's were internally clock doubled/trebled (DX2 and DX4s).
I also recall that some manufacturer (the name escapes me now) had built a "supercomputer" using four i860 CPUs. Part of the advertising was that it cost less than some threshold dollar figure (and I seem to recall $10,000, but don't count that as factual). It was targeted more for the university/research market. If some information on that design could be found, including theoretical and actual performance, that would make a nice addition as an example of a real design.
Thanks!
97.93.196.70 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clock speeds of the i860 etc 

message: Hauppauge sold a workstation (called the i4860, if I remember correctly) back in the early 1990s that had both an i486 and an i860 on the motherboard. We used them to help write code for our iPSC/860 Hypercubes.
173.164.82.58 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  hauppauge i4860 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intel i860. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525110753/http://www.geek.com/intels-486-cpu-turns-15/ to http://www.geek.com/intels-486-cpu-turns-15/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified