Talk:Systolic array

The paragraph before the "see also" line is the whole content of the Super_systolic_array article. Since there's nothing new in the other article, I see no reason for its existance, and suggest that a section about such arrays is written here instead. /193.11.202.125 09:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the distinction between "systolic arrays" and "wavefront arrays" in the article. Maybe I am too sensitive, but I believe it should depend on the logical operation of the array, not physical differences. One reason I noticed it is that I have been considering the design of some multi-board arrays and the problems of synchronizing between boards. It would seem to me that running an asynchronous link between boards should not disqualify the system as a systolic array. Even more, clock distribution is an art at high speed. It might be that with some clock distribution methods the result looks more asynchronous than others. Gah4 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to the SISAL language, although it is important as a parallel computing language, it does not have any particular relevance to Systolic arrays, any more than any other parallel computing languages and less relevant than some others not mentioned. Rmkeller (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about the 'Kress Array' doesn't make sense. Especially the last sentence is just grammatically wrong and doesn't say anything. Also theres a link to 'Kress Array' at the 'See also' section which takes you to the exact same page, too. So you're on 'systolic array', click at 'See also'->'Kress Array' and it brings you to 'systolic array'. This is wrong. It says 'See ALSO' not refresh page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.196.196 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Inventors
A proper reference for the inventors is required: a paper using the term without claiming the invention or even introducing it is hardly enough. The paper cited assumes the reader is already familiar with systolic arrays - hardly indicative of invention in this paper at least. Academic modesty would generally mean the actual inventors would re-introduce the topic at hand in subsequent papers so if there is no better evidence provided I intend to snip that. 3142 (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)