4 ms·

> It seems to be a summary of the contents of a graduate level course in computer architecture Graduate level? It was in my second year 'computer architecture'

> It seems to be a summary of the contents of a graduate level course in computer architecture Graduate level? It was in my second year 'computer architecture' class, except in much more grueling detail. But I was a CE major, so that's that... (however, I recall I had many SE's and EE's in that class too).

kd0amg 16y ago
It was in my second year 'computer architecture' class, except in much more grueling detail. How much more? There are quite a few topics here that weren't covered in my introductory architecture course (e.g. speculation, VLIW, register renaming), though they were in the senior-level one.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  He means this is a summary of what they covered, and that the actual class simply spent a week or three on each subject. Obviously if you've got 3 weeks to talk about caches, you're going to learn more (details) about them than what can be written in a paragraph or two.
  - kd0amg 16y ago
    Ok, I thought he meant the post was a summary of something more detailed than the course.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I find it somewhat amusing many of these things were not invented when I had my introductory architecture course...
sliverstorm 16y ago
Yea, any good intro to architecture should cover all this. I haven't yet taken any grad level architecture, but I suspect grad level is mostly "how do we actually do this stuff" instead of "here's what we do"
- zheng 16y ago
  In my architecture class, we didn't get to a lot of this stuff (sans the caching). However, everything we did cover we implemented via circuit simulation software. You'd be surprised at how tricky some of the stuff can be. Although controllers are really simply (at least, when you use microprogramming).
scott_s 16y ago
I was a computer science student in undergrad and grad school. None of the CS undergrad curriculums I was involved with (either as a student or as a TA) had this level of architecture for undergrad CS majors. For the record, my grad class used Hennessy and Patterson (http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Architecture-Quantitative-Approach-4th/dp/0123704901 http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Architecture-Quantitative-App...). Also, I think that "summary" should indicate that the real thing will have "much more grueling detail."
- KaeseEs 16y ago
  PH is the standard undergrad text for an arch course in much the same way as Wakerly is the standard for digital logic/components.
  - kd0amg 16y ago
    PH or HP? My intro course used Computer Organization and Design, and the senior course used Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach (both are by the same authors).
    - KaeseEs 16y ago
      Wow, didn't even realize the two authors had written two books on the subject. I meant the former and hadn't realized the parent of my post meant the latter, having not read the title after seeing the authors' names. Whoops!

kd0amg 16y ago

It was in my second year 'computer architecture' class, except in much more grueling detail. How much more? There are quite a few topics here that weren't covered in my introductory architecture course (e.g. speculation, VLIW, register renaming), though they were in the senior-level one.

sliverstorm 16y ago
He means this is a summary of what they covered, and that the actual class simply spent a week or three on each subject. Obviously if you've got 3 weeks to talk about caches, you're going to learn more (details) about them than what can be written in a paragraph or two.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  Ok, I thought he meant the post was a summary of something more detailed than the course.
rbanffy 16y ago
I find it somewhat amusing many of these things were not invented when I had my introductory architecture course...

sliverstorm 16y ago

Yea, any good intro to architecture should cover all this. I haven't yet taken any grad level architecture, but I suspect grad level is mostly "how do we actually do this stuff" instead of "here's what we do"

zheng 16y ago
In my architecture class, we didn't get to a lot of this stuff (sans the caching). However, everything we did cover we implemented via circuit simulation software. You'd be surprised at how tricky some of the stuff can be. Although controllers are really simply (at least, when you use microprogramming).

scott_s 16y ago

I was a computer science student in undergrad and grad school. None of the CS undergrad curriculums I was involved with (either as a student or as a TA) had this level of architecture for undergrad CS majors. For the record, my grad class used Hennessy and Patterson (http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Architecture-Quantitative-Approach-4th/dp/0123704901 http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Architecture-Quantitative-App...). Also, I think that "summary" should indicate that the real thing will have "much more grueling detail."

KaeseEs 16y ago
PH is the standard undergrad text for an arch course in much the same way as Wakerly is the standard for digital logic/components.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  PH or HP? My intro course used Computer Organization and Design, and the senior course used Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach (both are by the same authors).
  - KaeseEs 16y ago
    Wow, didn't even realize the two authors had written two books on the subject. I meant the former and hadn't realized the parent of my post meant the latter, having not read the title after seeing the authors' names. Whoops!