This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Early computers task force. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Hsould there be a category for Serial Computers? Several of the mentioned system do not state they a serial machines.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea to me. I created Category:Serial computers. --Jhertel (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Serial computers were typically implemented as a cost or complexity-saving measure. In contrast, Massively parallel computers are high-cost machines with performance as their main goal. Serial computers are characterized by running a large data word serially, bit-by-bit, through a single-bit ALU element. The cited Goodyear MPP is not a bit-serial computer even though it used single bit computing elements. It is really a SIMD computer as 16,384 single bit elements are working on different parts of the data simultaneously. Likewise the Connection Machine CM-1 and CM-2 are described in their articles as SIMD, not bit-serial. I suggest removing all the cited examples of massively parallel computers from the serial computer article. They are two unrelated technologies.

-- (unsigned) 021-04-09T15:46:43‎ RastaKins

Yes, I completely agree that bit-serial computers are characterized by running each bit of a number one at a time through a single-bit ALU element, typically as a cost-saving or complexity-saving measure. I also agree that the Goodyear MPP and the Thinking Machines CM-1 and CM-2 are SIMD computers with thousands of single-bit ALUs each working on *different* numbers simultaneously ("in parallel").

Those don't seem contradictory to me.

A SIMD may operate on thousands of *different* numbers simultaneously, but if it (or in general any of the other options in Flynn's taxonomy) processes all the bits of any one N-bit number all at the same time, then I call it a parallel SIMD (or in general a parallel CPU) and so doesn't belong in this article. Today a parallel SIMD typically has a bunch of monolithic N-bit ALUs. Some early parallel SIMDs used a bunch of single-bit ALUs -- N separate single-bit ALUs for each number, wired up to process all the bits of a number at once (in parallel) as a bit-slice design -- I agree that even those SIMD machines don't belong in this article.

If a SIMD (or in general any of the other options in Flynn's taxonomy) processes each number with only one single single-bit ALU (one bit at a time), then I call it a bit-serial SIMD (or in general a bit-serial CPU), which is one kind of bit-serial computer.

Yes, *some* massively parallel computers -- such as the MPP and CM-1 and CM-2 -- are bit-serial.

The MPP and other bit-serial machines belong in this article -- even though it has thousands of single-bit ALUs and so can processes thousands of separate numbers "in parallel". --DavidCary (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply