Almost sounds like the CPU was kind of an "attached processor" - similar to the way vector processors have been implemented by IBM and others.
On 7/14/2015 5:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 07/14/2015 02:53 PM, William Donzelli wrote: >>> Again, you're missing the point. >> >> This was a fairly specific CDC Cyber thing - not a widely adopted idea >> in the industry, as was originally asked for. >> >> The channel controller/director idea, on the other hand, was very >> widely adopted. > > That's true--but at the time, CDC's design made a huge amount of sense. > The CPU was left to do what it did best--crunch numbers without the > burden of managing the I/O activity and responding to interrupts. In > that sense, the CPU was treated as more of a peripheral device. In > fact, you could order a CPU-less system. (6416?) > > You can still see the general scheme implemented today on the Parallax > Probeller MPU, which, some, I'm sure will tell you, is a pretty nifty > design. > > --Chuck > > >
