Author: Greg Lindahl
Date: 12:19:01 12/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1999 at 14:50:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >The real headache with FPGAs is that they have some important missing things >that the DB chips have. Don't get caught up in the straw-man argument here -- there's no reason that someone using FPGAs would not put functions on the FPGA more suitable for FPGAs. Things have changed since DB: processors are faster, the busses have higher bandwidth and lower latency (DB was MCA, yes?), the interconnect I use is only as fast as DB's IBM SP (albeit with lower latency). These factors all mean that a different design is likely. I only asserted that the overall plan was possible, not that I could definitely put an exact replica of DB's chip onto an FPGA. And so there's not much point proving or disproving the assertion that I'm naieve for proposing something I never proposed. If you wanted to discuss the real issue, then discuss what you might put onto an FPGA that would produce speedup without loading the host processor too badly. -- greg
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.