Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th Sep 2009 17:30 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Hardware, Embedded Systems We all know (and love?) ARM as the company which focusses on licensing designs for power-efficient yet still powerful processors, mostly used in embedded devices. The Cambridge company has been looking to expand into the netbook market, and has now announced a new step in this process with a number of new multicore Cortex-A9 designs.
Order by: Score:
ARM is a clean slate ..
by kragil on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:00 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

.. it will be interesting to see how FOSS fares against closed source in this area.

I think a lot of vendors are smart enough to try different options. Consumers on the other hand .. not so sure.

Reply Score: 2

Me wants!
by SReilly on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:02 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

My ASUS 901 runs Ubuntu so for me, to see a netbook running one of these chips would be fantastic. I want raw performance AND power efficiency, I don't see why I should settle for just one of the two.

I'm hoping that when it's ready, they port Haiku to ARM as then I think all my netbook dreams would come true :-). Until then, Linux will do fine.

That said, does anybody know of a good mainstream disto release for the ARM architecture?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Me wants!
by Earl Colby pottinger on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:14 UTC in reply to "Me wants!"
Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

There already is work underway to port Haiku to ARM so don't be surprised if there is something bootable in the next year or so.

Question: It is my understanding that BeOS/Haiku uses the 'HALT' instruction to lower power use when the CPU is idle and waiting for an interrupt, does the ARM have such an instruction/mode and if it does how much power is used compared to normal CPU needs?

I am thinking in term of a large number of cores when a number of them will sit idle when there is not a heavy load on the system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Me wants!
by Bahadir on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Me wants!"
Bahadir Member since:
2007-05-19

There is a WFI (Wait For Interrupt) instruction that puts the cpu to idle mode. Currently supported by Linux on MPCore

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Me wants!
by kaiwai on Sat 19th Sep 2009 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Me wants!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

There already is work underway to port Haiku to ARM so don't be surprised if there is something bootable in the next year or so.

Question: It is my understanding that BeOS/Haiku uses the 'HALT' instruction to lower power use when the CPU is idle and waiting for an interrupt, does the ARM have such an instruction/mode and if it does how much power is used compared to normal CPU needs?

I am thinking in term of a large number of cores when a number of them will sit idle when there is not a heavy load on the system.


From what I understand Haiku is based on the NewOS kernel which includes support inside it for multiplatformness.

The problem with Linux is the need to get rid of HAL and replace it with something that doesn't depend on a constant cycle of polling. Once HAL is replaced you'll find that battery life will improve considerably when combined with the improvements that are slated for 2.6.32.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Me wants!
by No it isnt on Sat 19th Sep 2009 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Me wants!"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Really? I'm running powertop at the moment, and HAL doesn't even show.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Me wants!
by kaiwai on Sat 19th Sep 2009 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Me wants!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Really? I'm running powertop at the moment, and HAL doesn't even show.


Which distribution? I know that there have been several distributions that have wound back what HAL does these days with the advent of devicekit but there were something like 6-10 components which kept waking up the CPU. Even so, HAL is hardly an ideal situation given how horribly buggy and unreliable given my experience. GNOME 2.28 has been demarcated HAL to be removed and apparently by 2.30/3.0 it will be 100% removed and replaced with Devicekit, Devicekit-power and Devicekit-Storage.

If there is a slick version of Linux bundled with the ARM Netbook, people will purchase it; the problem has been so far is the half assed efforts by OEM vendors in making sure everything works reliably.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Me wants!
by Lennie on Sun 20th Sep 2009 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Me wants!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The replacement is called devicekit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Me wants!
by Bahadir on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:30 UTC in reply to "Me wants!"
Bahadir Member since:
2007-05-19

Ubuntu will be soon available for ARM (in fact there is a version that currently works)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Me wants!
by lemur2 on Sat 19th Sep 2009 13:46 UTC in reply to "Me wants!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That said, does anybody know of a good mainstream disto release for the ARM architecture?


Canonical are working on a version of Ubuntu for ARM.

Debian have had an ARM port for ages.

http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/

Reply Score: 2

Mainstream Distro fro ARM?
by gfolkert on Mon 21st Sep 2009 06:12 UTC in reply to "Me wants!"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

That said, does anybody know of a good mainstream disto release for the ARM architecture?


Ummm, Debian?

Has been for a while. ARM and ARM-EL since, like *FOREVER*...

Reply Score: 1

v Linux on ARM + Wine
by carltonh on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:19 UTC
RE: Linux on ARM + Wine
by vivainio on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:44 UTC in reply to "Linux on ARM + Wine"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I know Codeweavers says they aren't interested, but if some ARM company realizes that Wine on ARM could be their strongest sales method, then I hope someone fronts the dough to do it.


Very unlikely to happen, as Wine is not an emulator. Perhaps you are thinking of full fledged virtual machine products.

It'll be more interesting when software houses see compiling stuff for Linux/Arm as a way to differentiate against competition: even if they were overwhelmed by competition in the usual wintel market, a small company could carve an area for themselves on Linux / Linux+Arm platform as they become more popular.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by jabjoe on Fri 18th Sep 2009 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on ARM + Wine"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Actually, you would be best of doing a hybrid solution.
The Wine server running native on ARM, and the Wine client running emulated.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by viton on Sun 20th Sep 2009 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

The Wine server running native on ARM, and the Wine client running emulated.

So you want to emulate windows apps? What a waste of precious resources!
It just doesn't make any sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by WereCatf on Sun 20th Sep 2009 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So you want to emulate windows apps? What a waste of precious resources!
It just doesn't make any sense.


Why do people want to run Windows apps under Linux, BSD or OSX? Simple; because they are either used to those apps, there are no alternatives, or the alternatives just don't cut it. So of course it makes sense, atleast to those people can't get by with alternatives. But I think they'd be better off using Windows then altogether.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by viton on Sun 20th Sep 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

So WHY should one use non-compatible hardware platform with alternative OS for sluggish emulation of x86+Windows?
Isn't it simpler and more logical just to use Windows on x86?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by WereCatf on Sun 20th Sep 2009 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Re-read the last sentence?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by jabjoe on Sun 20th Sep 2009 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

guys guys! I didn't mean it was a good idea. I don't want Windows apps. I'm only interested in the technical aspect, and I was just saying, if you did need it, the best way would be native Wine server, and emulated Wine clients. So the moment the emulated app hands work to Win32, the work is native. That beats full emulation, but it still won't be near real x86. Even if the emulator is JIT'ed etc etc. If Windows compatability is required, a x86 is required. Perhaps you could have a second processor that is x86 (RiscPC style) that is only power up to run Wine client apps. All very interesting, but not in terms of usefulness. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by lemur2 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So WHY should one use non-compatible hardware platform with alternative OS for sluggish emulation of x86+Windows?
Isn't it simpler and more logical just to use Windows on x86?


Actually, it is simpler and more logical, and faster, more secure and far cheaper, to just use Debian for ARM. If you need any functionality that you cannot find native in Debian (doubtful) then it would be easier to write a new FOSS Linux-native application that implemented such functionality than it would be to try to run x86 Windows binaries.

For example: Mono is by far an easier way to run .NET on ARM than any kind of Wine + x86 emulation. To create and process word-processing, presentation or spreadsheet files, run OpenOffice not MS office. Use Firefox not IE to surf the web. Use GIMP (wait for version 2.8 with a sane GUI, perhaps) not Photoshop. Run Moneydance not Quicken. And so on, and so on.

http://www.gimpusers.com/news/2009-09-19/single-window-mode-gimp-2-...
http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2009/09/gimp-single-mode.h...

For well over 90% of uses and users, this will be by far the easiest way to get whatever desktop functionality one might need on any desktop, notebook or netbook machine with an ARM Cortex A9 dual core, 2GHz CPU. As a bonus it will perform far better than any same-price machine with Windows 7, too.

PS: For decent 3D graphics but still low-power machines, perhaps a combination of ARM Cortex A9 dual-core 2GHz (topic of this thread), a low-power GPU (perhaps the ATI HD 4300 http://hothardware.com/News/ATI-Launches-the-4600-Series-Mobile-GPU... ), say 4GB RAM, and the Linux 2.6.32 Kernel:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzU0Nw

There are no artificial constraints on how much "punch" and capability OEMs put into a Linux\ARM netbook.

Edited 2009-09-21 09:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by strcpy on Mon 21st Sep 2009 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

JustAroundTheCorner(tm).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by steve_s on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on ARM + Wine"
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

The notion of an ARM-native version of Wine is not terribly far fetched. There is even a precedent for it, that being the (PowerPC) Darwine project.

Back in 2002 the Darwine project started out with the notion of marrying up the QEMU processor emulator with Wine. They got as far as porting Wine to Darwin-x86, and even had a patch that had PowerPC Windows binaries (rare beasts) running on Darwin-PPC. It seems that after Apple announced the shift to x86 work on the QEMU integration (which had been going slowly) ground to a halt.

The same approach that Darwine was taking would be perfectly valid for ARM platforms. If there is sufficient demand it could happen.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux on ARM + Wine
by KenJackson on Fri 18th Sep 2009 20:44 UTC in reply to "Linux on ARM + Wine"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I think that the biggest boost that both Linux and ARM netbooks need is for Wine to be ported to ARM.

The reason Wine is so important on x86 is because there is a huge glut of apps that people think they can't live without that they are used to using on x86 Windows. So Wine allows them to keep one foot in the old world.

But ARM is a whole new world. Anyone making the break to ARM probably has their mind a little more open toward making a clean break from the past.

So making Wine work on ARM, maybe by adding some emulation capability, would be counterproductive.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by WereCatf on Fri 18th Sep 2009 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on ARM + Wine"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So making Wine work on ARM, maybe by adding some emulation capability,

It wouldn't be possible to run x86 Windows apps on ARM without converting ALL x86 instructions to ARM instructions. So it would require a lot more than just some emulation. Running anything more complicated than Calc.exe that way on a low-power ARM would be a suicide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by mmebane on Fri 18th Sep 2009 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
mmebane Member since:
2005-07-06

Not necessarily. You might be able to get by with running the Wine DLLs / Wine server as native code and then having some sort of thunks into the emulator which runs the app code. I believe the ARM can run in little-endian mode, so you might not even need to change endianness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by boldingd on Fri 18th Sep 2009 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

You'd still be running all the application code in emulation, which would still run terribly slowly and would probably be highly error-prone. Which I think was the point.

Edited 2009-09-18 21:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by WereCatf on Sat 19th Sep 2009 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Not necessarily. You might be able to get by with running the Wine DLLs / Wine server as native code and then having some sort of thunks into the emulator which runs the app code. I believe the ARM can run in little-endian mode, so you might not even need to change endianness.

Of course Wine itself would be native code then, but all the application code, x86 DLLs and all that would have to be emulated real-time. Even simple translation of x86 code to ARM would require keeping track of all the registers, jump references and such, not to mention the actual translation. That would make Wine a really complicated piece of software, it would make it even more crash-prone, and the performance would not be stellar.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by Kroc on Sat 19th Sep 2009 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Dynamic recompiling, like Rosetta on Mac. The APIs are native (WINE), but the x86 binaries can be partially recompiled at launch time, and then emulated (and cached) on the fly for the page-table stuff &c.

If there was the demand for it, it could be done. Hopefully there won’t be the demand for it ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by WereCatf on Sat 19th Sep 2009 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Of course it could be done, but Wine is still very much a work-in-progress and adding such functionality to it would just slow things down even more. Still, who knows if they do eventually do that?

If there was the demand for it, it could be done. Hopefully there won’t be the demand for it

I do also hope it won't be done. Why? For the simple reason that having no x86 software for ARM users to play with would most likely push people to develop open replacements for them. Or atleast work on an existing alternative. This would then in turn benefit ALL platforms where those alternatives are supported.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by jal_ on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Of course it could be done, but Wine is still very much a work-in-progress and adding such functionality to it would just slow things down even more.


Wine itself doesn't need to do that, however. Emulating APIs (what Wine does) and CPU emulation are two different things. Dynamic x86 recompilation for ARM has already been done, iirc, for DOSbox. You could basically run Wine on top of such an emulator.

For the simple reason that having no x86 software for ARM users to play with would most likely push people to develop open replacements for them.


I'm not sure in which world you live in (though if I would have to guess I'd say a pretty geeky one), but in reality, that would most likely stop people using ARM altogether (where 'people' is the ordinary user, not the geek). OS developers are never 'pushed' by market demands, they are pushed by what they themselves find interesting (unless there's company backup).


JAL

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux on ARM + Wine
by KenJackson on Fri 18th Sep 2009 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on ARM + Wine"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Running anything more complicated than Calc.exe that way on a low-power ARM would be a suicide.

Well good! It would be counterproductive to the advancement of free software anyway.

Reply Score: 2

What about Mobo for desktop?
by Zbigniew on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:37 UTC
Zbigniew
Member since:
2008-08-28

I would to buy quite ordinary motherboard with new ARM

Reply Score: 1

RE: What about Mobo for desktop?
by spikeb on Fri 18th Sep 2009 20:57 UTC in reply to "What about Mobo for desktop?"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

I'm waiting for that too! anyone listening? we want regular ARM motherboards in standardized form factors!

Reply Score: 3

Bahadir Member since:
2007-05-19

Currently you can get this micro-atx form factor motherboard with Cortex-A9 or ARM11MPCore, but it will cost you:

http://www.arm.com/products/DevTools/PB11MPCore.html

Reply Score: 1

Zbigniew Member since:
2008-08-28

Can't find pricing info. How much is it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What about Mobo for desktop?
by jabjoe on Sat 19th Sep 2009 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE: What about Mobo for desktop?"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

You guys seen the beagleboard?

http://beagleboard.org/

I nearly wet myself when I saw it. Perfect media pc hub.

My wife has reasoned with my though. For now...... ;-)

There is also the sheevaplug .
http://www.marvell.com/products/embedded_processors/developer/kirkw...

But that lack all the video out stuff.


Computers are getting interesting again. Once freed from Windows, you freed from x86. :-)

Reply Score: 1

Zbigniew Member since:
2008-08-28

Yes, beagleboard is very nice thing - but if one doesn't need it to be so small, "regular" ATX-board will be more comfortable, with some slots available, no need to buy special add-ons just to connect keyboard and mouse (or to have serial port available).

I would like just to replace Intel-based ATX-mobo with ARM-based one. Unfortunately, it seems, there's a need for a (little?) patience.

Reply Score: 1

jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Yer it depends what you want. I'm just gobsmacked someone hasn't put the beagleboard in a nice case, added ethernet/wireless and soled it as a quiet, cheap, media pc.

As Linux and free software rises, x86 doesn't matter so much, ARM will rise, but so will other architectures. Some competition at last. New architecture? No prob, just compile a Linux distro and all it's repository and release. The more architectures supported, the easier the next architecture is to support. Makes for better software too because bugs show up that would other wise remain hidden.

Only down side is tuning to a architecture, but that kind of stuff can abstracted into a lib which can be tuned for the major architectures. Which we kind of have now with the different types of x86 anyway.

If everything is open, it can all be open to change, so your don't have to let everything get gummed up with legacy (which is a good argument why there isn't a stable kernel interface).

x86 is an ugly ugly architecture, which personally, I blame for people running away from assembler and how computers actually work!

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't know what came first, running away from assembler or creating applications in a non-instructionset-specific language like C.

Because not having to depend on the instruction set made a lot of things possible, euh... did not leave a lot of old code/programs behind on older long forgotten platforms. Well, most of your post already mentions reasons why this is good.

Reply Score: 2

jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Languages like C came first. And I am very far from saying everything should be written in assembler. That would be crazy. But the ugly instruction set keeps people from digging down. It keeps them ignorant. You should have some idea how your code is compiling and if you don't, then don't bother learning C++ or your make a terrible mess. I'm not sure x86 is to blame for assembler being regarded as a dark dirty art, but I'm sure it doesn't help.

Reply Score: 1

Price baby
by bnolsen on Fri 18th Sep 2009 18:51 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

I'd like to see the prices on these ... especially 8 core units...

Very cool they now mention 8 core units. Previous documents only showed A9 scaling to 4 cores.

Also the addition of out of order execution with the A9 will help a lot.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Price baby
by bhtooefr on Fri 18th Sep 2009 19:19 UTC in reply to "Price baby"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

ARM's always said that Cortex-A9 could scale past 4 cores, just that there could only be 4 grouped together in one MPCore set. (Think how Intel's first dual cores were, where they were two individual processors on the same package. An 8-core Cortex-A9 would be two separate 4-core Cortex-A9s on the same die.)

Reply Score: 3

Comment by frood
by frood on Sat 19th Sep 2009 06:12 UTC
frood
Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh please tell me I'll be able to get a 2Ghz Quad-core RISC OS box sometime soon!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by frood
by jabjoe on Sat 19th Sep 2009 11:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by frood"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Oh please tell me I'll be able to get a 2Ghz Quad-core RISC OS box sometime soon!


There was a time that would have excited me. But come on, RISC OS is dead. Any life is due to zombification by die hards.

But your be able to run RpcEmu at super speeds because it because just virtualization instead of emulation.

But, I'm a Linux man now. (Even if ALSA pees me off because it's moving towards Windows rather than Plan9. Which is why no other *nix has adopted it. And don't get me started on Pulse Audio (see http://www.chaoticmind.net/~hcb/murx/xaudio/). OSSv4 looks like what we should have had......)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by frood
by Lennie on Sun 20th Sep 2009 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by frood"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm not terrible impressed with Pulseaudio either, but things seem to be improving. I'm kind of surprised they could stretch it that far.

I agree maybe OSSv4 should be adopted by the Linux-kernel. If only for compatibility reasons with other Unix-like operating systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by frood
by jabjoe on Sun 20th Sep 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by frood"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

ALSA is ignoring the lessons of Unix from the last 40 years. Keep it simple stupid. Everything is a file.

As Pulseaudio, don't have a separate network connection for sound than video! That's just asking for sync issues. The audio over X plugin is a great idea because both audio and video can go over the same ssh connect. Less code, less processing. Better still, it create a OSS file, so applications don't even recompiling.

Heart breaking isn't it.

Reply Score: 2

Woha!!! OMAP4?
by JAlexoid on Sat 19th Sep 2009 08:38 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Delivered this quarter? Isn't TexasInstruments already shipping their version of OMAP4 based on Cortex-A9?

Reply Score: 1

Solaris on ARM
by chekr on Sat 19th Sep 2009 10:42 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

And to all those naysayers who said OpenSolaris on ARM was pointless because ARM was underpowered...ha! :-P

Does anyone know if it would be fruitful to run these things in high density processing applications?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Solaris on ARM
by cb88 on Sat 19th Sep 2009 16:59 UTC in reply to "Solaris on ARM"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

Yep if ARM has a better heat/proformace ratio the it could well be considered for datacenters since that would be a major breakthrough

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Solaris on ARM
by bnolsen on Sat 19th Sep 2009 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Solaris on ARM"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

A very sizable portion of an x86 die is devoted to translating the x86 instructions into some other instruction set. Apparently ARM doesn't need to do this (for now).

Reply Score: 2

Reallife test
by mat69 on Sun 20th Sep 2009 21:06 UTC
mat69
Member since:
2006-03-29

What I'd be interested in would be a reallife test. Let someone do "common" tasks for different user groups (e.g. office users have different tasks than programmers) and see how far they will get, how long it takes etc.

I really think that ARM is on the right track, the energy-saving track. E.g. looking at my AMD cpu, it runs 90% of the time at the lowest frequence (800 Mhz), saving a lot of power and ARM's technology would most likely be even more efficient.

Now if only graphic vendors followed that track ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reallife test
by cb88 on Mon 21st Sep 2009 16:31 UTC in reply to "Reallife test"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

And yet it is probably still sucking more power than ARM at its highest power level

Reply Score: 1

RE: Reallife test
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 00:45 UTC in reply to "Reallife test"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What I'd be interested in would be a reallife test. Let someone do "common" tasks for different user groups (e.g. office users have different tasks than programmers) and see how far they will get, how long it takes etc.


The upcoming Ubuntu 9.10 in real life tests has just achieved a five second boot time on systems with SSDs.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2009/09/ubuntu-910-alpha...

There is no reason why a dual-core 2GHz ARM CPU system with an SSD couldn't do at least as well as that type of performance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Reallife test
by cerbie on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Reallife test"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

That has almost everything to do with the SSDs, and tweaking the init scripts, not so much the CPU. The real tasks to be concerned with are the likes of handling documents, browsing the web, etc.. They boast about theoretical potential, but we need to see some actual tests.

That said, even if it performs at 1/4 the Atom for real use, it will be compelling for netbooks, since you could have days of battery life, and/or netbooks well under 1lb, since RAM and display would be the dominant power hogs.

Reply Score: 2