| |
Why have we never had a floating point??? |
| |
(17:31 27/9/2000)
arenaman (00:28 28/9/2000)
johnstlr (09:07 28/9/2000)
[Steve] (17:42 28/9/2000)
ams (13:33 29/9/2000)
[Steve] (20:29 29/9/2000)
arenaman (13:58 15/6/2002)
[mentat] (13:58 15/6/2002)
|
| |
|
[Steve] |
Message #1752, posted at 17:31, 27/9/2000 |
| Unregistered user
|
Well why is it? Cost? Can't be a*sed? Do we divide in our head?? But seriously it appears to me that computers need games to survive. I'm not entirely sure why but there we go. It also seems that a FPU makes games a helluva lot easier to write. Especially 3d styleee type games. This isn't a moan, it's a genuine question - why was a FPU never given a chance!??!? 242 |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
arenaman |
Message #1753, posted at 00:28, 28/9/2000, in reply to message #1752 |
| Unregistered user
|
It was, the ARM 7500FE as used in the Microdigital and RiscStation machines, as well as the A7000+, has a floating point excellerator and can therefore out-perform a StrongARM on certain tasks such as MP3 compression. Of course, Intel are too ignorant to bother adding an FPE in the new StrongARM chips - we're not important enough. StrongARM is aimed at the PDA and mobile phone markets, althugh the huge number of RISC OS powered Pace products on order might change this. Maybe in future we will have dual processor machines with StrongARM taking care of the brunt of the work and the 7500FE or whatever it is then working on FP operations. The Imago does have space for two processors (I think). Here's hoping... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
johnstlr |
Message #1755, posted at 09:07, 28/9/2000, in reply to message #1753 |
| Unregistered user
|
I wouldn't say Intel were too ignorant to bother adding an FPU to the StrongARM. As you say, ARM processors are primarily aimed at the mobile markets where efficiency and low power consumption is far, far more important that the ability to crunch FP numbers. Indeed some of the major players in this industry see mobile devices as "short lived" and "disposable". You only have to look at the number of mobile phones that are thrown away each year to see that this has some basis. Why add an FPU to such a device? It'll only increase the cost. Although having said that the ARM 10 does have an FPU and, from a coders point of view, it looks quite tasty. Obviously we'll need 32bit RISC OS first. I don't think we'll see StrongARM machines utilising 7500FE chips for floating point. By the time you've trapped the instruction, off-loaded it to the 7500FE and got the results back you might as well have done it on the SA. Multiple processors is obviously another option, one which some people may prefer. You may never reach the speed of a true FPU, but the ability to increase the performance across ALL applications by adding another processor is quite a nice thought. I suspect this could be a long way off though as RISC OS is most definitely not built to take advantage of this.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
[Steve] |
Message #1756, posted at 17:42, 28/9/2000, in reply to message #1755 |
| Unregistered user
|
I did know about the A7000+ etc but I always thought it a shame that there was never a machine at the top of the range with floating point (although I do remember a friend who had a FPU for his A5000). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
ams |
Message #1758, posted at 13:33, 29/9/2000, in reply to message #1756 |
| Unregistered user
|
There in fact WAS, you could get an FPA11 chip that could be accomodated on the CPU daughter board used in the A5000. The ARM3 was the last ARM chip that provided the required co-processor bus to hook the FPA up to. As an aside the Intel xScale (ok StrongARM2) has a 32 bit co-processor bus - you never know it might take a 3rd generation FP device. The ARM-10 supports a VECTOR FP unit which by all accounts is pretty darned fast (about 600MFlops, by comparison a Cray I supercomputer managed 800MFlops). I expect FP or at least some form of hardware support for digital signal processing (the sort of application that needs FP) will be supported in later ARMs. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
[Steve] |
Message #1759, posted at 20:29, 29/9/2000, in reply to message #1758 |
| Unregistered user
|
Nice to hear, it can't be that expensive and should be implemented asap imho. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
I don't have tourettes you're just a cun |
Message #1754, posted by [mentat] at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #1753 |
![[mentat]](/images/smileys/mentat.gif) Fear is the mind-killer
Posts: 6266
|
Now that sounds nice (a nice dream, anyway)  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
arenaman |
Message #1757, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #1755 |
| Unregistered user
|
Maybe it *will* be built to take advantage of dual processors very soon. RISCOS Ltd are now opening offices in Cambridge and are looking for a Technical Directort to oversee the development of Desktop RISC OS. Now, could it be coincidence that RISCOS Ltd are opening up shop in the same city as Pace (who are *very* interested in the system to the tune of £1.3 million)? No. I wouldn't mind betting they're just down the road. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
