Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OoO execution (was: The Seymour Cray Era of Supercomputers)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 00:01:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <100ggod$1sbnn$3@dont-email.me>
References: <100apst$hsll$1@dont-email.me>
	<afa210f16ab3d6795c61787ad914e7ba@www.novabbs.org>
	<100bs7t$rna2$1@dont-email.me> <20250518182303.00003542@yahoo.com>
	<76948d869e78f8cb511809bd159008fd@www.novabbs.com>
	<100e352$1d61i$3@dont-email.me>
	<e5fc3f66c40e74c1cf09ba5ed5a53c14@www.novabbs.com>
	<2025May19.082242@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
	<20250519234115.00005185@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 02:01:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c26e5c9b13fc95b7a89645fbc1fb5d2f";
	logging-data="1978103"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K1XTfycLNKhgZj4FVuBP6"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LFipckOQkq3n7tcYJJ1penkOP38=
Bytes: 2080

On Mon, 19 May 2025 23:41:15 +0300, Michael S wrote:

> What about PPC604? It had more limited OoO resources than the 3
> processors you mentioned above, esp. fewer numeber of reservation
> stations, but it most certainly had reorder buffers, 16 of them.
> So, by your own definitions, it should be called the first single-chip
> full-blown CPU.

Was it a PowerPC 604-based Apple Mac that was the first PC to exceed the 
then-current US Department of Defense threshold for the definition of a 
“supercomputer”? I think it might have been 1 gigaFLOPS at the time. (Or 
is that too high for the time?)

That meant it was subject to export restrictions. I remember Apple making 
a lot of publicity about it at the time.

Of course, the threshold was raised soon after.