Flynn's Taxonomy as a modern classification

  • Thread starter Thread starter joel amos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classification
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Flynn's Taxonomy, established in 1966, remains relevant for classifying modern computer architectures, particularly within the von Neumann and Harvard models. Despite its generalization, it effectively aids in analyzing CPU architectures and setting expectations for hardware performance. However, it does not encompass emerging systems like quantum computing, highlighting its limitations. Fujitsu's production of Sparc SIMD chips for Solaris systems exemplifies the ongoing application of Flynn's principles in contemporary computing.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Flynn's Taxonomy and its classifications
  • Familiarity with von Neumann and Harvard architecture models
  • Knowledge of modern computing systems, including SIMD architectures
  • Basic concepts of taxonomy in various disciplines
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Flynn's Taxonomy on modern CPU design
  • Explore the limitations of traditional taxonomies in the context of quantum computing
  • Investigate the role of SIMD architectures in contemporary computing
  • Learn about alternative classification systems for computer architectures
USEFUL FOR

Computer architects, hardware engineers, students studying computer science, and anyone interested in the evolution of computing classifications.

joel amos
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Flynn's Taxonomy was a classification of computer architectures published in 1966. Computing has changed a lot since then. Is this taxonomy still useful? What are some of its shortcomings for evaluating modern computing systems?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
The short answer is yes. Why must older concepts have shortcomings? Fujitsu makes very expensive Sparc SIMD chips for Solaris systems, right now.
PS: if this is homework, which it sounds like, we may want to put it in another forum section.

Taxonomy is pigeon-holing to allow someone to start working on analyzing what they have. It often is used to set expectations or provide parameters or be explanatory for something. And to show how it relates to other similar things - in this case cpu's.

Taxonomy effectively started with Carl von Linne - Linnaeus (1707-1778). It (taxonomy) is actively used in many different disciplines.
 
Yes, this is homework. How do I move it?

jim mcnamara said:
Why must older concepts have shortcomings?

I'd tend to agree, but the question implies that there is. You can see no weaknesses of the taxonomy?
 
Ok. Taxonomic systems are based on generalizations. Flynn's taxonomy works for the von Neumann model or Havard model cpu and extensions thereof. It does not include other system models, like quantum computing, IMO.

[rant]
Note the IMO - this is exactly the point with a taxonomic system. It is a generalization. So you get to work out how to apply it to some extent at least. However, I've been in the field for quite a few years - everything I've worked with, overseen the purchase of - fits perfectly. So, from a practical standpoint, today, Flynn works darned well. Practical == I can buy a tested, debugged, working box at a non-astronomical cost.
[/rant]

Seriously:
What do your lecture notes say? I would go with whatever slant your prof takes. As I said, the IMO factor counts for something in this endeavor.
 
joel amos said:
Yes, this is homework. How do I move it?
You can't, but you can ask a mentor to do so, by clicking the Report button. In this case, however, I think that since this is more of a conceptual sort of question, the best place for this thread is right here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara

Similar threads

  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
5K