On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 07:04:43 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
> > > or if people should rather not ask anyway?
> > When
> > a) I have nore news for you, an
> > b) I am allowed to tell you
> > I will release the news.
> > Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> > MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> > 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> > tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612,
> > +34 649 662 974
> > http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
> Great, Thank You

and please have a look at
www.mpeforth.com - not working here
https://vfxforth.com/ does

> > Great, Thank You

> and please have a look at
> www.mpeforth.com - not working here
> https://vfxforth.com/ does

and now both websites are alive again today.

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
> > or if people should rather not ask anyway?
> When
> a) I have nore news for you, an
> b) I am allowed to tell you
> I will release the news.
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612,
> +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

I wonder, if you can give us an update about the new chip now?

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, 18:29 Jurgen Pitaske, <jpitaske@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> I wonder, if you can give us an update about the new chip now?

Oh Please! I could have done with a 6Ghz Forth chip 20 years ago, when it was possible. Even if it's based on Ting's old design, with 32+ processors. Especially if it could run Jeff's software and JavaScript (they also have figured out how to run linux on JavaScript now).

Anyway, the truth is controversial. Back in the tu.e that Intel were trying to push towards 4 and 5Ghz chips, it would have been possible to get higher speeds on a Forth chip. Rather than aim at FPGA, they could have made an Forth MCU with DSP. Basically NASA would have lined up, the military, and a whole bunch of high end applications. You could even charge $10,000 for such a chip, if done right. The rest of us could make do with a stripped down 2ghz version with 1/10 of the processing units, for $100, paid for out of profit on the top end part. Something even Intel or IBM, could invest in. Now, we need the lower end part for $1, and higher end parts for $10-$100. Amazing what teo decades of development will do.

The truth, is it possible for Green Arrays to make such a chip at 20-50Ghz with internal localised memory on each node treated as a contiguous address space, to feed the nodes fast enough. That would definitely generate a lot of interest. The fact it may consume 1KW, is not so relevant to these people (I guess it might still be below 100 watts). There are some very high speed applications requiring fast software radio processing. Definitely would save the us chip industry. We are definitely talking about the CPU side being more like an Ting or shboom instruction set, so they can load and ececute their C code more easily, or my own suggestions. Even a simple version of chip like this can use a node per hardware function in software. An IO, wireless, media, processor MCU is four nodes. Even one. You are talking about approaching companies let Intel, and saying "We can push your upcoming process node near the maximum" simply because the more compact simpler processor can complete things more simply with less heat, and be cooled better. Basically, you are talking about running it 2-5x faster than an overclocked i series chip at less energy.

The whole mini transputer thing was a bit of a dead end, but DSP application demand still goes on.

On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 16:11:56 UTC+1, S wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, 18:29 Jurgen Pitaske, <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ..
> > I wonder, if you can give us an update about the new chip now?
> Oh Please! I could have done with a 6Ghz Forth chip 20 years ago, when it was possible. Even if it's based on Ting's old design, with 32+ processors.. Especially if it could run Jeff's software and JavaScript (they also have figured out how to run linux on JavaScript now).
>
> Anyway, the truth is controversial. Back in the tu.e that Intel were trying to push towards 4 and 5Ghz chips, it would have been possible to get higher speeds on a Forth chip. Rather than aim at FPGA, they could have made an Forth MCU with DSP. Basically NASA would have lined up, the military, and a whole bunch of high end applications. You could even charge $10,000 for such a chip, if done right. The rest of us could make do with a stripped down 2ghz version with 1/10 of the processing units, for $100, paid for out of profit on the top end part. Something even Intel or IBM, could invest in. Now, we need the lower end part for $1, and higher end parts for $10-$100. Amazing what teo decades of development will do.
>
> The truth, is it possible for Green Arrays to make such a chip at 20-50Ghz with internal localised memory on each node treated as a contiguous address space, to feed the nodes fast enough. That would definitely generate a lot of interest. The fact it may consume 1KW, is not so relevant to these people (I guess it might still be below 100 watts). There are some very high speed applications requiring fast software radio processing. Definitely would save the us chip industry. We are definitely talking about the CPU side being more like an Ting or shboom instruction set, so they can load and ececute their C code more easily, or my own suggestions. Even a simple version of chip like this can use a node per hardware function in software. An IO, wireless, media, processor MCU is four nodes. Even one. You are talking about approaching companies let Intel, and saying "We can push your upcoming process node near the maximum" simply because the more compact simpler processor can complete things more simply with less heat, and be cooled better. Basically, you are talking about running it 2-5x faster than an overclocked i series chip at less energy.
>
> The whole mini transputer thing was a bit of a dead end, but DSP application demand still goes on.

When I asked Stepen Pelc for an update - if possible - I did not expect such a useless post as you have placed it.

20 years ago you would not have been able to get such a chip - you would have had to save your pocket money for quite some years or tens of years .

Ting got close with having his EP32 made as ASIC.

Greenarrays has not done any new designs for about 10 years now.

And it seems you have no clue what the Transputer was about.

I wonder what the S stands for - is it short for Silly comments ???

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:24:17 AM UTC+10, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 16:11:56 UTC+1, S wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, 18:29 Jurgen Pitaske, <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > > On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ..
> > > I wonder, if you can give us an update about the new chip now?
> > Oh Please! I could have done with a 6Ghz Forth chip 20 years ago, when it was possible. Even if it's based on Ting's old design, with 32+ processors. Especially if it could run Jeff's software and JavaScript (they also have figured out how to run linux on JavaScript now).
> >
> > Anyway, the truth is controversial. Back in the tu.e that Intel were trying to push towards 4 and 5Ghz chips, it would have been possible to get higher speeds on a Forth chip. Rather than aim at FPGA, they could have made an Forth MCU with DSP. Basically NASA would have lined up, the military, and a whole bunch of high end applications. You could even charge $10,000 for such a chip, if done right. The rest of us could make do with a stripped down 2ghz version with 1/10 of the processing units, for $100, paid for out of profit on the top end part. Something even Intel or IBM, could invest in. Now, we need the lower end part for $1, and higher end parts for $10-$100. Amazing what teo decades of development will do.
> >
> > The truth, is it possible for Green Arrays to make such a chip at 20-50Ghz with internal localised memory on each node treated as a contiguous address space, to feed the nodes fast enough. That would definitely generate a lot of interest. The fact it may consume 1KW, is not so relevant to these people (I guess it might still be below 100 watts). There are some very high speed applications requiring fast software radio processing. Definitely would save the us chip industry. We are definitely talking about the CPU side being more like an Ting or shboom instruction set, so they can load and ececute their C code more easily, or my own suggestions. Even a simple version of chip like this can use a node per hardware function in software. An IO, wireless, media, processor MCU is four nodes. Even one. You are talking about approaching companies let Intel, and saying "We can push your upcoming process node near the maximum" simply because the more compact simpler processor can complete things more simply with less heat, and be cooled better. Basically, you are talking about running it 2-5x faster than an overclocked i series chip at less energy.
> >
> > The whole mini transputer thing was a bit of a dead end, but DSP application demand still goes on.
> When I asked Stepen Pelc for an update - if possible - I did not expect such a useless post as you have placed it.
>
> 20 years ago you would not have been able to get such a chip - you would have had to save your pocket money for quite some years or tens of years .

That's just crazy miscomprehension. It's about designing a miniature overclocked CPU, using something like the process node that Pentium 4 used. As it is simplified with less transistors, it produces less heat, allowing more overclocking. You should know this, rather than throw false allegations around!
...
> Ting got close with having his EP32 made as ASIC

My point. He was in Europe shopping it, the chip Stephen is testing, is in Europe, and just enough time for such a design to be at the stage the 6 ghz one is . So, maybe it's related.
>
> Greenarrays has not done any new designs for about 10 years now.

It completely does not matter, and is not equivalent to what can be done.

> And it seems you have no clue what the Transputer was about.

Non Equivalent again Saying that dumping the mass parallel low energy transputer matrix for
a reduced core high demand DSP product makes more sense.

> I wonder what the S stands for - is it short for Silly comments ???

Well, the second letter is not U, that's your reply
Next time, be morre serious, please.

It is often intellectually petty useless people who make such replies around here. Wake up, you misread much of it. You were being silly and petty, I was being serious and realistic.

I wish you a good day sir.

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:46:04 AM UTC-4, S wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:24:17 AM UTC+10, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 16:11:56 UTC+1, S wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, 18:29 Jurgen Pitaske, <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > > > On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ..
> > > > I wonder, if you can give us an update about the new chip now?
> > > Oh Please! I could have done with a 6Ghz Forth chip 20 years ago, when it was possible. Even if it's based on Ting's old design, with 32+ processors. Especially if it could run Jeff's software and JavaScript (they also have figured out how to run linux on JavaScript now).
> > >
> > > Anyway, the truth is controversial. Back in the tu.e that Intel were trying to push towards 4 and 5Ghz chips, it would have been possible to get higher speeds on a Forth chip. Rather than aim at FPGA, they could have made an Forth MCU with DSP. Basically NASA would have lined up, the military, and a whole bunch of high end applications. You could even charge $10,000 for such a chip, if done right. The rest of us could make do with a stripped down 2ghz version with 1/10 of the processing units, for $100, paid for out of profit on the top end part. Something even Intel or IBM, could invest in. Now, we need the lower end part for $1, and higher end parts for $10-$100. Amazing what teo decades of development will do.
> > >
> > > The truth, is it possible for Green Arrays to make such a chip at 20-50Ghz with internal localised memory on each node treated as a contiguous address space, to feed the nodes fast enough. That would definitely generate a lot of interest. The fact it may consume 1KW, is not so relevant to these people (I guess it might still be below 100 watts). There are some very high speed applications requiring fast software radio processing. Definitely would save the us chip industry. We are definitely talking about the CPU side being more like an Ting or shboom instruction set, so they can load and ececute their C code more easily, or my own suggestions. Even a simple version of chip like this can use a node per hardware function in software. An IO, wireless, media, processor MCU is four nodes. Even one. You are talking about approaching companies let Intel, and saying "We can push your upcoming process node near the maximum" simply because the more compact simpler processor can complete things more simply with less heat, and be cooled better. Basically, you are talking about running it 2-5x faster than an overclocked i series chip at less energy.
> > >
> > > The whole mini transputer thing was a bit of a dead end, but DSP application demand still goes on.
> > When I asked Stepen Pelc for an update - if possible - I did not expect such a useless post as you have placed it.
> >
> > 20 years ago you would not have been able to get such a chip - you would have had to save your pocket money for quite some years or tens of years ..
> That's just crazy miscomprehension. It's about designing a miniature overclocked CPU, using something like the process node that Pentium 4 used. As it is simplified with less transistors, it produces less heat, allowing more overclocking. You should know this, rather than throw false allegations around!

Do you know what overclocking is??? It doesn't mean how you are using it.

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

S <waynemorellini@gmail.com> writes:
>On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:24:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC+10, Jurgen Pitaske =
>wrote:
>> 20 years ago you would not have been able to get such a chip - you would =
>have had to save your pocket money for quite some years or tens of years .=
>=20
>
>That's just crazy miscomprehension. It's about designing a miniature overc=
>locked CPU, using something like the process node that Pentium 4 used. As =
>it is simplified with less transistors, it produces less heat, allowing mor=
>e overclocking.

Actually, Intel released the Pentium 4 HT 3.0 on April 14, 2003 (3.06
on November 14, 2002, 3.2 on June 23, 2003). These are all
Northwood-based Pentium 4s, i.e., they have ALUs running at double
clock speed, i.e., 6GHz for the 3.0 and 6.4GHz for the 3.2. The
Northwood (and before it, the Willamette) actually were able to
perform two dependent adds per clock cycle (I have measured this on a
Northwood).

So, in 20 years old technology it is possible to create a 6GHz stack
machine. Whether it is any good in application performance is another
question (the Pentium 4 was somewhat disappointing).

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 10:32:54 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote:
> S <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:24:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC+10, Jurgen Pitaske =
> >wrote:
> >> 20 years ago you would not have been able to get such a chip - you would =
> >have had to save your pocket money for quite some years or tens of years .=
> >=20
> >
> >That's just crazy miscomprehension. It's about designing a miniature overc=
> >locked CPU, using something like the process node that Pentium 4 used. As =
> >it is simplified with less transistors, it produces less heat, allowing mor=
> >e overclocking.
>
> Actually, Intel released the Pentium 4 HT 3.0 on April 14, 2003 (3.06
> on November 14, 2002, 3.2 on June 23, 2003). These are all
> Northwood-based Pentium 4s, i.e., they have ALUs running at double
> clock speed, i.e., 6GHz for the 3.0 and 6.4GHz for the 3.2. The
> Northwood (and before it, the Willamette) actually were able to
> perform two dependent adds per clock cycle (I have measured this on a
> Northwood).
>
> So, in 20 years old technology it is possible to create a 6GHz stack
> machine. Whether it is any good in application performance is another
> question (the Pentium 4 was somewhat disappointing).

The Pentium 4 was lacking in speed compared to the clock speed, because they made the high clock speeds possible by increasing the pipeline length, and so faster pipeline stages. The downside of this approach is the longer time to recover from pipeline stalls. With a couple of iterations, they were able to further increase the clock speeds. In all versions, the Pentium 4 was faster then the Pentium 3s, just not always by much.

The Pentium 3s were easy to overclock, sometimes by 2x. Pentium 4s hardly at all.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:17:39 AM UTC+10, Lorem Ipsum wrote:

> Do you know what overclocking is??? It doesn't mean how you are using it.
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> -+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> -+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

What an incredible idiotic Gas light! Be a bit more sophisticated if you are going say things they are only going fool the naive with very little technical knowledge.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:32:54 AM UTC+10, Anton Ertl wrote:
> S <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:24:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC+10, Jurgen Pitaske =
> >wrote:
> >> 20 years ago you would not have been able to get such a chip - you would =
> >have had to save your pocket money for quite some years or tens of years .=
> >=20
> >
> >That's just crazy miscomprehension. It's about designing a miniature overc=
> >locked CPU, using something like the process node that Pentium 4 used. As =
> >it is simplified with less transistors, it produces less heat, allowing mor=
> >e overclocking.
>
> Actually, Intel released the Pentium 4 HT 3.0 on April 14, 2003 (3.06
> on November 14, 2002, 3.2 on June 23, 2003). These are all
> Northwood-based Pentium 4s, i.e., they have ALUs running at double
> clock speed, i.e., 6GHz for the 3.0 and 6.4GHz for the 3.2. The
> Northwood (and before it, the Willamette) actually were able to
> perform two dependent adds per clock cycle (I have measured this on a
> Northwood).
>
> So, in 20 years old technology it is possible to create a 6GHz stack
> machine. Whether it is any good in application performance is another
> question (the Pentium 4 was somewhat disappointing).

Thank you Anton. The performance issue, is going to depend on how it's coded and what it is used for. The simplified design allows higher clocking and negates pipelining somewhat. It's just a numbers game to high end buyers. Even if they had to put the thing in a Cryo cooler in missile, they wouldn't care, as long as they can get the increased response time (just a hypothetical). I'm purely saying the ultra lowest energy did not pan out. But, a three pronged approach would have been better. The Seaforth ultra low energy cores, a higher performance low energy version, which acted more like a regular microcontroller, and a high performance chip that starts out low and clocks up and resources out for very high end work, where the budgets are very high. No normal processor contender is going to offer only one chip for a very low profit market (though they did get to two or so chips). If you can sell into three market segments, that is more sahee potential. The catch was, we should have aimed at the more high end market with a needed response version, than thinking about it in terms of avoiding the flooded MCU/processor market. That pays for a low end version that can go into those markets, and servers. You then offer a clear advantage lower end MCU, and offer the clear lowest energy version, and it doesn't matter if they don't get contracts and sit on the hard drive, as your costs are largely covered by shared development, business admin, costs and profits, of the highest.end parts. I just saw today that NVIDIA is going to mop up with an high end Arm product. 20 years ago, the bar was a lot lower, and billions could have been saved now with a low clocked version of the high end part by now. We can't really do the same now, there might be some low cost low energy server farm applications, but Arm and RiscV are already onto that. If it was me, I would be saying 15 years ago, who do we sell put to, inorder to keep the business running with investment and distribution of better products. You could have sold to google back then, with plans for a cheaper server implementation. That's a major cost for them. Pragmatism. Anyway, recovering from being very sick all day again, so better get a move on

Thanks again, Anton.

> - anton
> --
> M. Anton Ertl h ttp://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
> comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
> New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
> EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

On Friday 2 July 2021 at 9:49:54 pm UTC+10, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
> predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
> occupy less than 1 sqare mm.

Do you post updates somewhere else? I'm interested in energy envelope range, and if it will be available in quantity for products, or single units for maler projects? I also suggest: a Royal Break Out card. Flexible thin board that exposes lines to holes for maker crowd, with minimal direct memory + flash, usb3 C 10mb/s+ with video over HDMI x2, and exposure of IO pins. That would put it ahead of most SBC products in Arduino/pi spaces and easily surface mount for everybody else, and able to have linux developed for it eventually using the C compiler, even if in a virtual interpreted machine for security. It would then be suitable for small Chinese Linux nucs with internet media player functions..

On 20 Jan 2024 at 01:53:40 CET, "•" <chat.to.dot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday 2 July 2021 at 9:49:54 pm UTC+10, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>> An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
>> predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
>> occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
>
> Do you post updates somewhere else? I'm interested in energy envelope range,
> and if it will be available in quantity for products, or single units for
> maler projects? I also suggest: a Royal Break Out card. Flexible thin board
> that exposes lines to holes for maker crowd, with minimal direct memory +
> flash, usb3 C 10mb/s+ with video over HDMI x2, and exposure of IO pins. That
> would put it ahead of most SBC products in Arduino/pi spaces and easily
> surface mount for everybody else, and able to have linux developed for it
> eventually using the C compiler, even if in a virtual interpreted machine for
> security. It would then be suitable for small Chinese Linux nucs with internet
> media player functions..

It's a real chip (now) with a specific first application. Once the first
production
application devices are running I expect that the developers will look at
other
applications and dev tools.

Until then, you just have to wait.

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:26:18 UTC, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2024 at 01:53:40 CET, "•" <chat....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 2 July 2021 at 9:49:54 pm UTC+10, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> >> An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
> >> predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
> >> occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
> >
> > Do you post updates somewhere else? I'm interested in energy envelope range,
> > and if it will be available in quantity for products, or single units for
> > maler projects? I also suggest: a Royal Break Out card. Flexible thin board
> > that exposes lines to holes for maker crowd, with minimal direct memory +
> > flash, usb3 C 10mb/s+ with video over HDMI x2, and exposure of IO pins. That
> > would put it ahead of most SBC products in Arduino/pi spaces and easily
> > surface mount for everybody else, and able to have linux developed for it
> > eventually using the C compiler, even if in a virtual interpreted machine for
> > security. It would then be suitable for small Chinese Linux nucs with internet
> > media player functions..
> It's a real chip (now) with a specific first application. Once the first
> production
> application devices are running I expect that the developers will look at
> other
> applications and dev tools.
>
> Until then, you just have to wait.
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

One point is still unclear to me:
Is this a chip just for internal projects,
or will this chip be as well available for the outside world to buy?
Either as a chip or as a development board?

On 23 Jan 2024 at 08:23:16 CET, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpitaske@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:26:18 UTC, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>> On 20 Jan 2024 at 01:53:40 CET, "•" <chat....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 2 July 2021 at 9:49:54 pm UTC+10, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>>>> An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
>>>> predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
>>>> occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
>>>
>>> Do you post updates somewhere else? I'm interested in energy envelope range,
>>> and if it will be available in quantity for products, or single units for
>>> maler projects? I also suggest: a Royal Break Out card. Flexible thin board
>>> that exposes lines to holes for maker crowd, with minimal direct memory +
>>> flash, usb3 C 10mb/s+ with video over HDMI x2, and exposure of IO pins. That
>>> would put it ahead of most SBC products in Arduino/pi spaces and easily
>>> surface mount for everybody else, and able to have linux developed for it
>>> eventually using the C compiler, even if in a virtual interpreted machine for
>>> security. It would then be suitable for small Chinese Linux nucs with internet
>>> media player functions..
>> It's a real chip (now) with a specific first application. Once the first
>> production
>> application devices are running I expect that the developers will look at
>> other
>> applications and dev tools.
>>
>> Until then, you just have to wait.
>> Stephen
>> --
>> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
>> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
>> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
>> tel: +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
>> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
>
> One point is still unclear to me:
> Is this a chip just for internal projects,
> or will this chip be as well available for the outside world to buy?
> Either as a chip or as a development board?

.... You just have to wait. ...

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 7:26:18 am UTC+10, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2024 at 01:53:40 CET, "•" <chat....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 2 July 2021 at 9:49:54 pm UTC+10, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> >> An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
> >> predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
> >> occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
> >
> > Do you post updates somewhere else? I'm interested in energy envelope range,
> > and if it will be available in quantity for products, or single units for
> > maler projects? I also suggest: a Royal Break Out card. Flexible thin board
> > that exposes lines to holes for maker crowd, with minimal direct memory +
> > flash, usb3 C 10mb/s+ with video over HDMI x2, and exposure of IO pins. That
> > would put it ahead of most SBC products in Arduino/pi spaces and easily
> > surface mount for everybody else, and able to have linux developed for it
> > eventually using the C compiler, even if in a virtual interpreted machine for
> > security. It would then be suitable for small Chinese Linux nucs with internet
> > media player functions..
> It's a real chip (now) with a specific first application. Once the first
> production
> application devices are running I expect that the developers will look at
> other
> applications and dev tools.
>
> Until then, you just have to wait.
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

Thanks Stephen. But the question is, where else can we wait at apart from here? I don't like coming here, and I will probably miss the information.

Thanks Stephen. But the question is, where else can we wait at apart from here? I don't like coming here, and I will probably miss the information.