[Info-vax] Chinese Alpha?

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote 2012-04-30 14:58:
> Paul Sture wrote 2012-04-30 13:45:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:11:08 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>
>>> JF Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>> Assuming that Samsung has full access to the Alpha IP, would this be of
>>>> use to them when implementing their ARM chips, or would the
>>>> designs/technilogies/ideas of Alpha apply only to work at a lower
>>>> level, done by ARM in england and and thus have no value to the
>>>> "packaging" done by Samsung ?
>>>
>>> Alpha is an ISA (instruction set architecture) originally implemented
>>> about 20 years ago. The ISA may be applicable today, but the details of
>>> the implementations likely aren't.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, there is no reason Alpha couldn't be implemented in
>>> current technology, and be successful in the market.
>>>
>>> Now, it might be that some details of old Alpha implementations could be
>>> useful in new designs, but most of the lower level (gate level) ideas,
>>> as far as I know, wouldn't.
>>
>> Wasn't Alpha quite power hungry?
>
> First released Alpha processorn was built using a 750 nm process.
> The volume models (EV5/EV6) used a 500 or 350 nm process.
> The last sold (EV7/EV7z) used 180 nm
> The canceled EV78/EV79/EV8 would have used 130 or 125 nm.
>
> Latest Xeon (and IA64 Poulson) uses/will use a 32 nm process.
>
> 125 => 32 nm = aprox *30* times less chip area.
>

Sorry, a slight error there. Should have been :

180 => 32 nm = aprox *30* times less chip area.

Jan-Erik.


> Yes, the Alpha chips was rather power hungry, but one can not
> compare 10 yers old technology with todays chip processes.
> It's amazing what speed the Alphas run at on those processes...
>
> Jan-Erik.
>
>
>
>
>
>> And isn't that ARM's advantage over
>> Intel?
>>
>> http://buswk.co/IOdN51
>>
>> "Until recent years, Intel (Intel) focused its efforts on what’s called
>> the “clock speed” of CPUs, rapidly increasing the performance of computer
>> chips to handle desktop operating systems and processor-intensive
>> applications better. Less thought was given to reducing the power
>> consumption requirements of these chips.
>>
>> RAMPING UP PERFORMANCE
>>
>> Contrast that with chips built on the ARM architecture, which is licensed
>> to chipmakers such as Nvidia, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Freescale, and
>> a host of others. Instead of the “top down” strategy of boosting
>> performance first and focusing on power requirements second, ARM chips
>> have used a “bottom up” approach. Early ARM chips weren’t capable of
>> running complex software but could run for days between charges. Once the
>> power requirements of the silicon were effectively managed, ARM chips
>> began to ramp up performance, most recently with quad-core chips that can
>> offer 16 hours of high-definition playback on a tablet."
>>
>>
>