“In Part One and Part Two of this series we delivered an overview of the embedded processor market and key product families. We also looked at Java chips and other custom embedded processors. Then we reviewed some of the microarchitectural and programming features that differentiate embedded processors from mainstream CPUs. And we described some performance measurement techniques and issues. In this final segment, we’ll dig into DSPs, media processors, and power saving techniques.” Read the third installment of the interesting article at ExtremeTech.
Embedded Processors, Part Three
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It would be interesting to create a PC out of one of these processors.
Take the Xscale strong arm, its an excellent processor, can run at 1 GHz and consumes very small amounts of power. “power features ranging from one ten-thousandth of a watt to 1.6 watts”
http://www.intel.com/design/intelxscale/benchmarks.htm?iid=xscale+l…
Think of a machine with 8 strong arms running at 1 GHz.
8 of these little buggers running at 1GHz would consume just under 13 watts of power.
Hey strong arms are really cheap,and small lets go with 16 of them for a total of 26 watts of power. Thats just amazing. At 1 GHz these processors put out 1200 mips each.
Anybody want to build one of these?
i was recently asked if i wanted to save an SGI indigo from the scrap-heap. now, they dont really run linux (iirc), R3000 w/ 16MB memory. i came home and looked at my compaq aero (mips R4000 compatible w/24MB ram + CFII card bus) and just smiled: i’m carrying around a better computer than the 3000-dollar high-end workstation bought about a decade ago
PS: Fake Bill Gates: 8 strong arms might run at 1GHz, but memory access would still have to be at the same bus speed, limiting you to one memory access every eight cycles. if you want an 8-way monster check out the ia-64, its built for that. if its a cheap/low power computer you want then look no further than the LART (http://www.lart.tudelft.nl).
Oh I was just thinking about how powerful the Xscale is. It just seems a shame to me that we are basically stuck with these huge power sucking processors when it would be possible to do so much better. The IA-64 looks interesting but right now the itanium consumes 130 watts of power!!! All by itself.
For 130 watts you could have 81 Xscale strong arms. Which run at a higher clock speed than itanium.
I think the bus problem could be fixed if some motherboard maker wanted to build 16 way Xscale systems.
That LART looks interesting but its just a research project.
I have thought about one of these, but they are too expensive.
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/briQ/
The following excerpt from the article, explaining why AMD cancelled the excellent 2900 chip, which had 192 (!!) registers, is an excellent case for open source, and why people are thinking stringly about Linux in the embedded space:
<em>In AMD’s case, the 29K was selling well but the company had to pour all of its profit, and then some, into software subsidies. AMD was paying third-party developers of compilers, operating systems, and other programming tools to support the 29K. Such subsidies are typical. Software companies won’t arbitrarily develop complex compilers or operating systems unless they know there’s a lucrative market for such products–or unless they’re paid up front.
</em>
This is a case where open source changes all the rules. By making a GCC machine definition which supports the processor in question, and making an embedded Linux port which runs on the chip, a company making a new embedded system has instantly made a development environment for the chip in question. I belive the 29000 could have survived if AMD was more aware of the open source movement at the time; this was when AMD processors were saying “Designed for Windows 95” on them, even though they ran perfectly fine with Linux.
– Sam