Re: is Vax addressing sane today

Liste des Groupes 
Sujet : Re: is Vax addressing sane today
De : anton (at) *nospam* mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 04. Oct 2024, 16:07:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID : <2024Oct4.170717@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : xrn 10.11
jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes:
In article <2024Oct3.085754@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
If the RISC companies failed to keep up, they only have themselves to
blame. It seems to me that a number of RISC companies had difficulties
with managing the larger projects that the growing die areas allowed.
>
Another contributing factor was Itanium, which was quite successful at
disrupting the development cycles of the RISC architectures.

That's the question.  It seems to me that many struggled even before,
and jumped ship to IA-64 ASAP.

Alpha suffered from DEC's mis-management, which led to DEC being taken
over by Compaq. They killed Alpha when Itanium first became to work, and
before it was clear that it was a turkey.

Alpha suffered before.  The 21264 was late, and did not keep up in the
clock race.  While they had higher clock rates than the competition up
to the EV56 (1996), the OoO EV6 appeared with a lower clock rate than
the in-order EV56 (while the OoO Pentium Pro had a higher clock rate
than the in-order Pentium available at the same time), and did not
scale as well with smaller processes as the Intel and AMD CPUs, which
were making huge strides in those years.  Intel then had the 2000MHz
Pentium 4, and AMD the 1200MHz Athlon in 2000 (and 1400MHz by the time
Alpha was canceled); unfortunately, release dates for EV6 variants at
different clock rates are not documented on Wikipedia, so
unfortunately I cannot make a table of Alpha vs. Intel and AMD clock
rates by year.

PA-RISC was intended by HP to be replaced by Itanium. They managed that,
but their success was limited because Linux on x86-64 was so much more
cost-effective.

Reportedly they thought early on that they could not afford to keep
their own line competetive, so they started the IA-64 project with
Intel.  Interestingly, they also designed the OoO PA-8000, which was
introduced at the same time as the Pentium Pro, and they used the same
microarchitectur until they introduced the PA-8900 almost 10 years
later, which showed a more evolutionary approach than most others used
in those years.

IBM kept POWER development going through the Itanium period, which is a
significant reason why it's still going.

With the Power 4+ (2003) it also got competetive clock rates
(although, judging by the PowerPC 970, I wonder what the IPC was).

SGI went into Itanium hard and neglected MIPS development, which never
recovered. It had been losing in the performance race anyway.

The followon project "Beast" for the R10000 failed (was canceled), and
then SGI management was happy to jump ship to Itanium, and in the
meantime they only respun the R10000 into R12000, R14000, R16000.

Sun kept SPARC development going, but made a different mistake, by
spreading their development resources over too many projects. The ones
that succeeded did so too slowly, and they fell behind.

Intel, HP, SGI and AMD went to OoO in 1995/1996, Alpha in 1998, Power
at the latest with Power3 in 1998, only Sun kept doing in-order stuff,
and took until 2011 to finally get an OoO CPU out the door in the form
of the SPARC T4 (their Rock project was also OoO, but was canceled).
They also had relatively low clock rates before that (which changed
with the SPARC T5).  Fujitsu managed better, introducing the OoO
SPARC64 V in 2002, and also with competetive clock rates.

Also, Linux ate
their web-infrastructure market rather quickly.

Well, SPARC survived much longer than most others, despite being
technically a lot behind.

Power still survives, maybe only because it has a common basis with
iSeries (or whatever it is called now).  Similarly, s390x survives
because of its software legacy.

Linux could not have had the success it did without the large range of
powerful and cheap hardware designed to run Windows.

It was first developed on a 386, and many of the early co-developers
also had IA-32 machines.  But the 386 certainly was not designed to
run Windows.  The 386 project was finished before Windows 1.0 was
released in November 1985, and nobody used Windows 1.0 or 2.0, so why
would anybody design a processor for those?  Windows became only
popular with 3.0 in 1990 (after the release of the 486, which was
therefore not designed for Windows, either).  When I bought my first
PC (with a 486) in 1993, it ran DOS (for games) and Linux (for
everything else).

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
  Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

Date Sujet#  Auteur
5 Sep 24 * is Vax adressing sane today336Brett
5 Sep 24 +* Re: is Vax adressing sane today324John Dallman
6 Sep 24 i+- Re: is Vax adressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Sep 24 i`* Re: is Vax adressing sane today322Anton Ertl
6 Sep 24 i +- Re: is Vax adressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Sep 24 i +* Re: is Vax adressing sane today5MitchAlsup1
7 Sep 24 i i`* Re: is Vax adressing sane today4Anton Ertl
7 Sep 24 i i `* Re: is Vax adressing sane today3Anton Ertl
7 Sep 24 i i  `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2John Dallman
7 Sep 24 i i   `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Anton Ertl
7 Sep 24 i +* Re: is Vax adressing sane today313John Levine
8 Sep 24 i i`* Re: is Vax adressing sane today312Anton Ertl
8 Sep 24 i i +* Re: is Vax adressing sane today304MitchAlsup1
8 Sep 24 i i i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today303Lawrence D'Oliveiro
9 Sep 24 i i i +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today231MitchAlsup1
9 Sep 24 i i i i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today230Brett
9 Sep 24 i i i i +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today7MitchAlsup1
10 Sep 24 i i i i i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today6Niklas Holsti
11 Sep 24 i i i i i +- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
25 Sep 24 i i i i i `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4Stephen Fuld
25 Sep 24 i i i i i  `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Michael S
25 Sep 24 i i i i i   `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
25 Sep 24 i i i i i    `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Niklas Holsti
10 Sep 24 i i i i `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today222Anton Ertl
10 Sep 24 i i i i  +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4Michael S
10 Sep 24 i i i i  i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Anton Ertl
10 Sep 24 i i i i  i +- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Niklas Holsti
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Michael S
11 Sep 24 i i i i  +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today6Michael S
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today5David Brown
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i  +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2Thomas Koenig
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i  i`- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1David Brown
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i  `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2David Schultz
13 Sep 24 i i i i  i   `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1David Brown
11 Sep 24 i i i i  +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today5John Levine
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4Thomas Koenig
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2Anton Ertl
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i i`- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1jseigh
11 Sep 24 i i i i  i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1John Levine
20 Sep 24 i i i i  `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today205Kent Dickey
21 Sep 24 i i i i   +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4MitchAlsup1
21 Sep 24 i i i i   i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Sep 24 i i i i   i `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
21 Sep 24 i i i i   i  `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Sep 24 i i i i   +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Sep 24 i i i i   i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3MitchAlsup1
21 Sep 24 i i i i   i +- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Niklas Holsti
21 Sep 24 i i i i   i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 Sep 24 i i i i   +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today30MitchAlsup1
22 Sep 24 i i i i   i+* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today18John Levine
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii+- Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today1Michael S
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii+* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today8Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii`* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today7Chris M. Thomasson
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii `* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today6MitchAlsup1
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii  +* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii  i`- Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii  +- Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today1Chris M. Thomasson
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii  `* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today2John Dallman
22 Sep 24 i i i i   iii   `- Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii+* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today5Terje Mathisen
24 Sep 24 i i i i   iii`* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Sep 24 i i i i   iii `* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today3Chris M. Thomasson
24 Sep 24 i i i i   iii  `* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24 i i i i   iii   `- Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today1Chris M. Thomasson
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii`* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today3Lars Poulsen
24 Sep 24 i i i i   ii `* Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Sep 24 i i i i   ii  `- Re: except what, is Vax addressing sane today1Michael S
22 Sep 24 i i i i   i+* Re: is Vax addressing sane today7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today6MitchAlsup1
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Sep 24 i i i i   ii `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2Anton Ertl
24 Sep 24 i i i i   ii  `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
24 Sep 24 i i i i   i+* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2Stefan Monnier
24 Sep 24 i i i i   ii`- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
25 Sep 24 i i i i   i+- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
12 Oct 24 i i i i   i`- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Anton Ertl
22 Sep 24 i i i i   +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4Thomas Koenig
24 Sep 24 i i i i   i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Kent Dickey
24 Sep 24 i i i i   i +- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Bill Findlay
24 Sep 24 i i i i   i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Thomas Koenig
23 Sep 24 i i i i   +- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Stefan Monnier
23 Sep 24 i i i i   `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today161Kent Dickey
24 Sep 24 i i i i    +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today11MitchAlsup1
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i+- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today9Terje Mathisen
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today4Michael S
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Terje Mathisen
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i i `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2Michael S
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i i  `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Stephen Fuld
24 Sep 24 i i i i    i i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
25 Sep 24 i i i i    i i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Stephen Fuld
12 Oct 24 i i i i    i `- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Anton Ertl
24 Sep 24 i i i i    +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3Terje Mathisen
29 Sep 24 i i i i    i+- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Michael S
7 Oct 24 i i i i    i`- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1Kent Dickey
25 Sep 24 i i i i    +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today133MitchAlsup1
26 Sep 24 i i i i    i+- Re: is Vax addressing sane today1MitchAlsup1
28 Sep 24 i i i i    i`* Re: is Vax addressing sane today131Lawrence D'Oliveiro
28 Sep 24 i i i i    +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today3George Neuner
7 Oct 24 i i i i    +* Re: is Vax addressing sane today8Kent Dickey
12 Oct 24 i i i i    `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today2Anton Ertl
9 Sep 24 i i i `* Re: is Vax addressing sane today71Anton Ertl
8 Sep 24 i i `* Re: is Vax adressing sane today7Brett
8 Sep 24 i `* Re: is Vax adressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
6 Sep 24 +* Re: is Vax adressing sane today2MitchAlsup1
6 Sep 24 +- Re: is Vax adressing sane today1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Sep 24 `* Re: is Vax adressing sane today8Anton Ertl

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal