6 May
2007
6 May
'07
4:48 p.m.
In article <200705061154.07789.pat at computer-refuge.org>,
Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> writes:
On Saturday 05 May 2007 21:02, Richard wrote:
Right, if you want a general purpose CPU, you buy one. If you need a
different architecture, then your architecture isn't one for a general
purpose CPU, but a special purpose CPU. You can build that in an FPGA
if that's what you need.
Really, I don't see what the complaint is here. It seems to be akin
to saying "ya know, back in the old days when we hand-made nails, each
nail was different. Each nail had character. I don't like these
mass-manufactured nails, they're all so identical."
Au contraire. "Architecture" these
days is whatever you want it to be
cooked into an FPGA. [...]
Sure, but no one (in their right mind) builds a general purpose CPU out
of them. Have you actually used a FPGA board?
Yep.
I challenge you to come up with the name of a single
product that someone
can purchase right now, which uses an FPGA-implemented CPU, which is
general-purpose, and reasonably widely available.
What would be the point of that?
Obviously such things don't exist exactly for the same reasons I just
stated above. If "architecture" is just different, but not better,
then what's the point?
The protestations seem to be that the marketplace has settled on a few
general purpose CPU designs. Well boo-f*cking-hoo. Again, so what?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>