Well, what would you call a network processor? An FPGA or a CPU? I think of it as somewhere in between, given credence to the FPGA statement below. -TD
From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv@cdc.gov> To: "cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net> Subject: Re: SHA1 broken? Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 06:51:24 -0800
At 09:23 PM 2/19/05 +0000, Dave Howe wrote:
I am unaware of any massive improvement (certainly to the scale of the comparable improvement in CPUs) in FPGAs, and the ones I looked at a a few days ago while researching this question seemed to have pretty
FPGAs scale with tech the same as CPUs, however CPUs contain a lot more design info (complexity). But FPGAs since '98 have gotten denser (Moore's observation), pioneering Cu wiring, smaller features, etc.