"... In PAGE 9: ... These cate- gories include instruction distribution delays, operand net- work latency (including both hops and contention), execu- tion overhead of instructions to fan operands out to mul- tiple target instructions, ALU contention, time spent wait- ing for the global control tile (GT) to be notified that all of the block outputs (branches, registers, stores) have been produced, and the latency for the block commit protocol to complete. Table3 shows the overheads as a percentage of the critical path of the program, and the column labeled Other includes components of the critical path also found in conventional monolithic cores including ALU execution time, and instruction and data cache misses. The largest overhead contributor to the critical path is the operand routing, with hop latencies accounting for up to 34% and contention accounting for up to 25%.... In PAGE 10: ... We use Sim-Alpha, a simulator validated against the Alpha hardware to take the baseline measurements so that we could normalize the level-2 cache and memory system and allow better comparison of the pro- cessor and primary caches between TRIPS and Alpha. Table3 shows the performance of the TRIPS processor compared to the Alpha. Since our focus is on the disparity between the processor cores, we simulated a perfect level-2 cache with both processors, to eliminate differences in per- formance due to the secondary memory system.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... These cate- gories include instruction distribution delays, operand net- work latency (including both hops and contention), execu- tion overhead of instructions to fan operands out to mul- tiple target instructions, ALU contention, time spent wait- ing for the global control tile (GT) to be notified that all of the block outputs (branches, registers, stores) have been produced, and the latency for the block commit protocol to complete. Table3 shows the overheads as a percentage of the critical path of the program, and the column labeled Other includes components of the critical path also found in conventional monolithic cores including ALU execution time, and instruction and data cache misses. The largest overhead contributor to the critical path is the operand routing, with hop latencies accounting for up to 34% and contention accounting for up to 25%.... In PAGE 10: ... We use Sim-Alpha, a simulator validated against the Alpha hardware to take the baseline measurements so that we could normalize the level-2 cache and memory system and allow better comparison of the pro- cessor and primary caches between TRIPS and Alpha. Table3 shows the performance of the TRIPS processor compared to the Alpha. Since our focus is on the disparity between the processor cores, we simulated a perfect level-2 cache with both processors, to eliminate differences in per- formance due to the secondary memory system.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... These cate- gories include instruction distribution delays, operand net- work latency (including both hops and contention), execu- tion overhead of instructions to fan operands out to mul- tiple target instructions, ALU contention, time spent wait- ing for the global control tile (GT) to be notified that all of the block outputs (branches, registers, stores) have been produced, and the latency for the block commit protocol to complete. Table3 shows the overheads as a percentage of the critical path of the program, and the column labeled Other includes components of the critical path also found in conventional monolithic cores including ALU execution time, and instruction and data cache misses. The largest overhead contributor to the critical path is the operand routing, with hop latencies accounting for up to 34% and contention accounting for up to 25%.... In PAGE 10: ... We use Sim-Alpha, a simulator validated against the Alpha hardware to take the baseline measurements so that we could normalize the level-2 cache and memory system and allow better comparison of the pro- cessor and primary caches between TRIPS and Alpha. Table3 shows the performance of the TRIPS processor compared to the Alpha. Since our focus is on the disparity between the processor cores, we simulated a perfect level-2 cache with both processors, to eliminate differences in per- formance due to the secondary memory system.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... These cate- gories include instruction distribution delays, operand net- work latency (including both hops and contention), execu- tion overhead of instructions to fan operands out to mul- tiple target instructions, ALU contention, time spent wait- ing for the global control tile (GT) to be notified that all of the block outputs (branches, registers, stores) have been produced, and the latency for the block commit protocol to complete. Table3 shows the overheads as a percentage of the critical path of the program, and the column labeled Other includes components of the critical path also found in conventional monolithic cores including ALU execution time, and instruction and data cache misses. The largest overhead contributor to the critical path is the operand routing, with hop latencies accounting for up to 34% and contention accounting for up to 25%.... In PAGE 10: ... We use Sim-Alpha, a simulator validated against the Alpha hardware to take the baseline measurements so that we could normalize the level-2 cache and memory system and allow better comparison of the pro- cessor and primary caches between TRIPS and Alpha. Table3 shows the performance of the TRIPS processor compared to the Alpha. Since our focus is on the disparity between the processor cores, we simulated a perfect level-2 cache with both processors, to eliminate differences in per- formance due to the secondary memory system.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... Lastly, the source of dark signal electrons is tackled by means of passive cooling of the sensor head down to -20 degrees centigrade. These measures should result in the performance profile shown in Table3 . Take note of the high charge conversion factor of 8fF and photon response of up to 8.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ... Failing this, obstacles remained in the distributor until the end of the test. The result of this trial is given in Table3 . The obstacle trap caught a substantial number of obstacles, especially when attached to distributor prototype V1.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...able 3: Published specifications for the GP2D02 sensor......................................................................................... 11 Table4... ..."

"... In PAGE 10: ...ig. 2. BAPTI SMS emulator. To evaluate real world performance of the proposed method, we have conducted preliminary experiments using ten SMS prototype phrases of varying length containing high informal word rate. Table1 tabulates analytic results concerning the number of keystrokes needed from BAPTI and STEM and error rates of single errors and double errors (e.g.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ... We cannot describe here the implemen- tation, so we just give some preliminary results of its use. Table1 reports, for each of ve di erent programs, the analysis time (a Sun SPARCstation 10 was used) and a description of the bene ts obtained. We have met the rst four programs before; the last one, option, is the more complex and is distributed with the CLP(R) system.... ..."