riscy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 21066 board (was Wild idea)

To: riscy@sunsite.unc.edu
Subject: Re: 21066 board (was Wild idea)
From: <hodgen@mailhost.uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 11:02:09 MET
In-reply-to: <199401302338.AA09786@SunSITE.Unc.EDU>; from "Michael K. Johnson" at Jan 30, 94 6:39 pm
> >If you make L2 cache an option and do away with PCI (If everything is on the
> >motherboard, who needs it?) you'd have a very good starting point. Good to
> >see that there is life after MIPS. If this gets going I'll have to change
> >my signature :)
> 
> What do you mean by "everything is on the motherboard"?  Whose
> definition of everything?  What if person X wants to add a device?
> I'd be willing to drop ISA support, myself, but there's no point in
> dropping PCI support, since it is supported by the CPU.

So long as decent audio is on the board and ethernet PCI cards aren't
incredibly expensive, go ahead, kill the ISA. If person X wants to add card
Y, where is he going to put it? By everything I mean the basics that
everyone needs. Serial, parallel, video, SCSI. There is going to be
a lot of discussion about _what_ video and if SCSI is needed (there were
the last time). There will be lots of shouts for Ethernet on the board (I
need it for one) or on a cheap enough PCI card. Audio tastes vary wildly too.
Some only want 8kHz bleepers, others (me included) want 44.1kHz multi channel
boards. I think we need to define the minimum configuration board that 
*everyone* (80% or so) wants to see. And the rest will have to go on cards.
Otherwise there will be continual arguments "drop <xx>, I don't want it and
it makes it too expensive".
 
> Also, with the ALPHA chip, I think that not having an L2 cache would
> be a real waste of processor.  I don't know of any reason that it
> couldn't be made an option, I'm just doubting your sanity for not
> wanting it ;-)  Remember, this CPU (at least one of the two we are
> considering) is ~twice as fast as the MIPS, and can use a lot of fast
> access to memory...

Thats one hell of an assumption pal. Look at what I wrote and read it this
time. I certainly wouldn't want an uncached board with the processor
continually waiting for memory. But some will balk at the cost of cache chips
(I'm assuming a decent sized/fast cache. ~0.25MB to 1MB) with board. They'll
want to buy the motherboard without cache and bung in the chips as they can
afford to. Amazing concept huh? Thinking about what someone else may want ;-)

-- 
Wayne Hodgen   | hodgen@informatik.uni-koblenz.de | Have you heard about the
Uni Koblenz,   | or Fight-o-net 2:245/5618.50     | riscy project? A GPL based
Rheinau 1,     | Voice: +49 261 9119-645          | design for an R4000 PC MB.
56075 Koblenz. | Fax:   +49 261 9119-499          | MIPS, Power to the people!
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>