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)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
