I'm genuinely curious and really like that you're giving this a shot, but am very sceptical, as hardly any idea in computer architecture is new: if you dig enough you'll find it has been tried, but failed. You'll have to understand why it failed. If it was timing, maybe you can succeed today, but if it wasn't timing, you'll have to understand why it failed and don't repeat the same mistakes. It would be great to see more comparisons.

Firstly, your claims about virtual memory in general purpose CPUs is misleading: its purpose is memory virtualization and I wouldn't want a system without it in the presence of multiple processes (how can you trust every process not to shoot down another by accidentally accessing a wrong memory location?).

Ultimately, our hardware will become more specialized/heterogeneous, and we'll have many accelerators for various tasks, but there will likely always be a general purpose CPU at the heart of the system (that will have virtual memory, caches, etc.); for an overview, I enjoyed [1]. I see what you're building as another accelerator for inherently parallel latency-insensitive workloads (like you find in HPC). In a way, GPUs (+ Xeon Phi) cater to these markets today (benchmarks against these would be useful).

Second, I remember the previous post [2], where you claimed the system you are building relies on a RISC ISA, but now you claim it has changed to VLIW. You said yourself before "[...] stick to RISC, instead of some crazy VLIW or very long pipeline scheme. In doing this, we limit compiler complexity while still having very simple/efficient core design, and thus hopefully keeping every core's pipeline full and without hazards [...]"

What is the rationale behind this? Do you think you'll be able to manage compiler complexity now?

Any response is much appreciated!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArJdzbeZQc

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8658631