I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came out. David May designed them both, of course. Leon leon355@btinternet.com
XMOS XC-1 kits are shipping
Started by ●October 10, 2008
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
On Oct 10, 9:01�pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > Leon > leon...@btinternet.comIs the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\ Steve
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
On 10 oct, 09:01, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > Leon > leon...@btinternet.comDon't be surprised if people are skeptical. Remember what happened to the company that made Field-programmable- object arrays?
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote:> On Oct 10, 9:01�pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > > Leon > > leon...@btinternet.com > > Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half > thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\ > > SteveThe transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to universities and research establishments, because there was nothing else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their own fab! Leon
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
On 10 Oct, 18:11, Benjamin Couillard <benjamin.couill...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 10 oct, 09:01, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > > Leon > > leon...@btinternet.com > > Don't be surprised if people are skeptical. > > Remember what happened to the company that made Field-programmable- > object arrays?These are processors, not FPGAs. Leon
Reply by ●October 11, 20082008-10-11
On 10 oct, 13:44, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:> On 10 Oct, 18:11, Benjamin Couillard <benjamin.couill...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 10 oct, 09:01, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > > > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > > > Leon > > > leon...@btinternet.com > > > Don't be surprised if people are skeptical. > > > Remember what happened to the company that made Field-programmable- > > object arrays? > > These are processors, not FPGAs. > > Leon
Reply by ●October 11, 20082008-10-11
On 10 oct, 13:44, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:> On 10 Oct, 18:11, Benjamin Couillard <benjamin.couill...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 10 oct, 09:01, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > > > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > > > Leon > > > leon...@btinternet.com > > > Don't be surprised if people are skeptical. > > > Remember what happened to the company that made Field-programmable- > > object arrays? > > These are processors, not FPGAs. > > LeonI'm well aware of that, I'm just saying that we shouldn't always believe the hype. I'll believe it when I see it..
Reply by ●October 11, 20082008-10-11
Leon wrote:> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > Leon > leon355@btinternet.comI see the sdk poster lists as one example an "audio synthesizer". I will be interested to hear just how sophisticated (or not) that is. And whether it will ever be reasonable to run streaming FFTs on it. And, what the running temperature is. The transputer had a sort of problem in that if you had a lot of them packed together (viz. the famous early Csound transputer project at Durham university), they sort of melted. Also interesting that they list the keywords "float" and "double" as currently unsupported (which is understandable enough) but also "reserved for future use". Wonder how far ahead they are looking. Richard Dobson
Reply by ●October 11, 20082008-10-11
Leon wrote:> On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote: >> On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. >>> The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. >>> I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came >>> out. David May designed them both, of course. >>> Leon >>> leon...@btinternet.com >> Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half >> thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\ >> >> Steve > > The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology > that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to > universities and research establishments, because there was nothing > else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their > own fab! >I met a guy from the transputer design team down in the Bryce Canyon (here in the US). Unfortunately that company seemed to have lacked marketing savvy just like Plessey and many others. Great products (well, most of them) but that doesn't get you anywhere unless you can nail the next step, the deal. It's probably similar to engineer-driven car manufacturers like Borgward. A seasoned car mechanic here in the US told me that these were among the most well designed and quality built cars ever. But ... Of course I secured a small stash of Plessey SL6440 mixers before it all imploded. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
Reply by ●October 11, 20082008-10-11
On Oct 11, 6:43�am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:> On 10 Oct, 17:42, ste...@coppice.org wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 9:01�pm, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > I've just ordered my 1600 MIPS XMOS XC-1 design kit. > > > > The XMOS chips will replace DSPs and FPGAs in a lot of applications. > > > > I haven't been so excited about a new chip since the transputer came > > > out. David May designed them both, of course. > > > > Leon > > > leon...@btinternet.com > > > Is the comparison with the Transputer supposed to imply this is a half > > thought out design with brain dead execution? :-\ > > > Steve > > The transputer was ahead of its time, and really pushed the technology > that was available. I sold a lot of systems using it, mostly to > universities and research establishments, because there was nothing > else around with that sort of performance then. Inmos even had their > own fab! > > LeonYes at the time it was way ahead. Trouble is that there was not many people who had given thought to paralel computing back then - even now it is experimental on the whole and not mainstream. Another machine of the time was made by Linn Products who make Hi-Fi.. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=381711.381716 It was a small-talk machine called Recusiv - fully Object Orientated - again way ahead of its time. People had just started using C and were still using Fortran. Assembler was the only low level language available. Hardy