Re: RISC outside of SPECCPU
- From: Grumble <devnull@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:09:20 +0200
MitchAlsup@xxxxxxx wrote:
"64 entries is NOT large, and I vaguely remember figures of 16 for the ROMP and first SPARC."
64 entries is not large by todays standards, but was a considerable amount of silicon realestate in the days of the first RISC chips (1982 desgin starts).
Mitch,
You seem to insert quotes by hand.
I've read there is a way around Google's broken interface:
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson .
- References:
- RISC outside of SPECCPU
- From: Dysthymicdolt
- Re: RISC outside of SPECCPU
- From: MitchAlsup
- Re: RISC outside of SPECCPU
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: RISC outside of SPECCPU
- From: MitchAlsup
- RISC outside of SPECCPU
- Prev by Date: Re: Code density and performance?
- Next by Date: Re: Code density and performance?
- Previous by thread: Re: RISC outside of SPECCPU
- Next by thread: Re: RISC outside of SPECCPU
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|