From: cmcl2!panix.com!entropy@uunet.UU.NET (Daniel Gross)
Subject: Re: TECH: Using TI340x0
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:45:25 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


In <1992Apr5.235558.23138@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dstamp@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Dave Stampe-Psy+Eng) writes:

>sorrow@oak.circa.ufl.edu writes:
[stuff deleted]
>>My question is, these boards are popular for CAD, but has anyone used
>>them for VR?  If not, why not?  It seems that a TI34020 based system
>>with a TI34082, along with a 486 and an i860, would make a fairly
>>inexpensive and EXTREMELY fast VR system.  Cost would be around 15,000
>>dollars for the hardware ( i.e. processors ).  The TI34020 board
>>can be had for a bit over a 1000, and the FPU is something like 200 0dolalrs.
>>the i860 would be the most expensive processor.

>Why use the TI chip at all, if you're going to use an i860?  It does
>the floating point far faster and supports Z-buffering and Gourand
>shading in hardware.  While the TI chip only does trapezoid fills
>w/o Z-buffering.

>Speed is pretty good on the i860 too.  For "photorealistic" type
>VR work (as opposed to flat, depth-sorted polys) I'd prefer the
>i860 myself.  But of course the TI chip IS cheaper.

A few questions come to mind regarding this exchange:

a) I agree with Dave on the irrelevance of pairing a TI with an
860. Why, then, did Hercules decided to slap both chips on the
Graphics Workstation? Is there some rationale for the combo
that eludes me (and Dave)?

b) I have heard disqueting rumors from other newsgroups (e.g. 
comp.sys.intel, comp.parallel) that Intel is discreetly diminishing
support for the i860. This is unfortunate since it represents the
company's best work to date on silicon, and is at present the
closest thing we have to the ideal VR chip (hardware graphics,
pipelined instructions, excellent MIPS/$, great floating point)
in spite of its drawbacks (dreadful intruction set, poor 3rd-party
vendor support, and it's easily a 4-month hack to port WorldTool
to the i860 IPX/UNIX environment).

My question is: what is the consensus among participants in this
newsgroup as to the continued viability of the i860, vs. say,
MIPS or SPARC (support for which doesn't look to be fading for
many years to come)? I'm working on a hardware spec for a VR
platform and just settled on the 860, but now I worry.
 
I know, I know, there all just Turing Machines... all the same,
I'd like to have executables with a half-life greater than that
of CP/M :-)....


-- 
  Daniel Gross              \  My opinions ALWAYS
  FLOW Research, Inc.       |  reflect those of my company.
  entropy@panix.com         |  If yours don't, consider quitting.