On 2018-Jan-01, at 5:06 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 2018, at 3:57 PM, David Bridgham via cctalk 
>> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2018 03:33 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
>>>> From: Paul Koning
>>> 
>>>> The only asynchronous computer I can think of is the Dutch ARRA 1
>>> 
>>> Isn't the KA10 basically asynchronous? (I know, it has a clock, but I'm
>>> not sure how much it is used for.)
>> 
>> This was my understanding, as well.
>> 
>> More recently there was the AMULET processors designed at the University
>> of Manchester.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMULET_microprocessor
>> 
>> One of the stories I read about the AMULET was that they wrote a little
>> program to blink an LED where the timing was determined by a busy loop. 
>> If they sat a hot cup of coffee on the processor, the light would blink
>> slower; a cup of ice water and it would blink faster. 
> 
> Neat.  I found this 2011 paper that's interesting: 
> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~nowick/nowick-singh-ieee-dt-11-published.pdf
> 
> The company I was trying to remember is Fulcrum, which was bought by Intel; 
> they had morphed into an Ethernet switch chip company by then.  A pretty good 
> one, as I recall.  But the original concept was a microprocessor, possibly a 
> MIPS one, I don't remember.  The idea was that the chip speed would depend on 
> how fast things happened to work, so different chips would run at different 
> speeds due to process variations, and power supply and temperature changes 
> would also affect things just as you described.
> 
> The paper I just mentioned lists a number of early computer designs as 
> asynchronous, though it doesn't mention the ARRA 1, probably because it's not 
> well known (a problem common to Dutch computers).  Also, those other 
> computers did work.


The IAS machine (1952, and in some measure a template design for modern 
processors) and its clones (ILLIAC, ORDVAC, MANIAC, etc.) were billed as an 
asynchronous design, although I haven't seen the details to see precisely what 
that meant in context.

Reply via email to