ARM-based desktop computer ? (Hybrid computers ?: Low + High performance ;))
|
Prev: 2 new instructions for marker scanning for Skybuck's Universal Code 6.
Next: ARM-based desktop computer ? (Hybrid computers ?: Low + High performance ;))
From: Skybuck Flying on 8 Jun 2010 05:58 Hello, Today Apple "released" the iPhone 4.0... I believe it has something like a 1.0 GHz processor... I find that quite impressive, 1.0 GHz in such a small package and non-overheating ??? Maybe to good to be true ? I wonder what the future will bring ?... Will we see the rise of "low power/low heat/low noise desktop computers" being powered by ARM-based processors ? Is this the end of Windows because it doesn't work on ARM processors ? Can intel atom processors compete with ARM processors ? What's AMD's answer to atom and arm ? Can an AMD/Intel single 1.0 to 2.0 GHz core be compared to ARM 1.0 to 2.0 Ghz Core ? Would they both be about as fast... or would one win over the other ? To me 1.0 to 2.0 GHz seems to be the magical number/milestone/border/hurdle towards a good to great desktop experience. For 99.9% of my daily PC activity 1.0 to 2.0 GHz would be enough... this almost includes video processing at modest resolutions 640x480 or so... maybe 800x600, maybe even 1024x768... further enhancements/optimizations might enable very large resolutions too but don't count on it ;) For 1920x1200... 4.0 GHz is probably needed to run smooth and cool (strangely enough)... Or a really cool 2.0 GHz processor ;) Only gaming does need stronger graphics cards and stronger cpu's to do more... However software/technology does advance so maybe I could be wrong an maybe people will need more processing power... but I don't think so... Therefore assuming all people need more processing power is a bit dangerous... A good secondary strategy is to focus on low power/low heat/low noise/weaker processors to accomadate non-gaming related and non-high-performance tasks/crowd ;) I do want a low heat, low noise, low power computer, but I also want a strong, high performant computer which can do heavy tasks. I would love to have a computer which can be totally quite thanks to for example a ARM processor or maybe even an ATOM processor. I would also love it if the fans only go on when it's really needed like gaming or maybe huge video's. Thus I guess a system which can do both would be ideal for me. My current PC is already able to do this a little bit: AMD Dual Core Processor and NVIDIA 7900 GTX graphics card. But these two technologies do not take it far enough. The processor still needs a fan to spin. The graphics card still needs a fan to spin. The desktop still needs fans to be constantly on... <- This is the biggest problem probably. Therefore what is needed is: 1. A motherboard which can control the desktop fans and even shut them down. 2. Processors/Graphics cards which can do the same. 3. Special software which can regulate this or special hardware. 4. Debuggers to make sure no evil "shut fans down during heat" is in there to kill hardware ;) 5. Temperature meters everywhere for safety... 6. Emergency shutdown in case of emergency/accidental overheat. 7. Fan spin up failure detection. 8. Maybe even blocked air flow detection. 9. Maybe even unacceptable noise detection and throttling of hardware to reduce noise in return lower performance. 10. This would require microphones which might be too privacy-paranoya ;) So not a good idea. 11. Maybe even build in temperature displays in/on the desktop case to show constant temperature of hardware at different locations in the case to feel "safe" :) Ultimately HEAT is bad though... even for the high performance situation. HEAT is unpleasant for the human beings... it can become to hot in summer. Assuming HEAT can be expelled from CASE and not be a problem could be wrong thing to do. HEAT also leads to bigger fans on buildings which is bad too. However... In the winter HEAT can working as heating device... and the problem is less big... it can actually be nice. Therefore producing more HEAT in winter is more acceptable... unless melting the polar caps is a bad idea ! ;) :) And yup it could be bad... many countries facing floodings ! ;) :) So maybe ultimately HEAT = BAD = EVIL. Try to use materials and designs which give great processing power but no to little heat ;) New inventions are done all the time.... Are intel/amd/ati/nvidia up to the task ? Or will ARM take the cookie and the cake ?! ;) :) (Just some random thoughts of me on the 1.0 GHz in a tiny package ;) :):):) There is even talk of 1.5 GHz in iphone 5.0 wow ! ;) :)) Please feel free to comment within the lines and fill in the blanks, misconceptions, pipe-dreams, yes/no etc ;) :) Bye, Skybuck =D
From: Richard Torrens (News) on 8 Jun 2010 06:54 Re: ARM-based desktop computers do exist and the platform still has active participants. Most of the hardware we run on is now old - but the operating system (RISC OS) can run under emulation. There is a new board: the Beagle board http://beagleboard.org/ which can run RISC OS (it's been ported) The main advangage of the ARM processors is that htey are high performance/power so are optimum for mobile use - not for desktop use! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
From: Joel Koltner on 8 Jun 2010 13:27 "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFuture(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:79d44$4c0e142b$54190f09$14971(a)cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > I find that quite impressive, 1.0 GHz in such a small package and > non-overheating ??? That's transistor scaling for you. > Will we see the rise of "low power/low heat/low noise desktop computers" > being powered by ARM-based processors ? To some extent, yes. It's already happening -- look at the success of Intel's Atom CPUs. > Is this the end of Windows because it doesn't work on ARM processors ? No. Windows (NT and beyond) has always had a "hardware abstraction layer" -- you'll recall that NT and XP used to come in versions for MIPS and Alpha CPU architectures. Writing an ARM HAL is no big deal at all for Microsoft -- there's rumors they might have already started looking that direction, e.g.: http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/01/arm-ceo-hints-at-possible-windows-7-support-for-arm-processors/ > Can intel atom processors compete with ARM processors ? Sure. "Compete" means so much more than just MIPS per dollar or MIPS per watt today -- pricing is very important as well. Look at how "successful" Microsoft was in almost completely killing Linux's inroads into netbooks after they started offered XP Home to netbook manufacturers for <$10/copy. > What's AMD's answer to atom and arm ? They'd tell you Neo, although to date it doesn't compete all that well. > For 1920x1200... 4.0 GHz is probably needed to run smooth and cool > (strangely enough)... Or a really cool 2.0 GHz processor ;) Well, if you force the CPU to do all the rendering, perhaps so. But plenty of systems ran at those resolutions back in the days of hundreds-of-MHz CPUs with the help of graphics processor ICs to do the "heavy lifting" for the display. Intel has, for years now, been fighting a battle with the GPU manufacturers over whether rendering is best done in their CPUs of the GPUs. (Notice how Intel doesn't have any GPUs to compete with those from AMD or nVidia...) > However software/technology does advance so maybe I could be wrong an maybe > people will need more processing power... but I don't think so... Most of technology today is driven much more by what people "want" than what they "need." Twenty years ago who would have thought that for ~$50 then (~$99 now) people would be getting CLOCK RADIOS that consist of a 454MHz CPU, 64MB of RAM, and 54Mbps wireless networking? But here we are today... and here's Chumby: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11529965 > I would love to have a computer which can be totally quite thanks to for > example a ARM processor or maybe even an ATOM processor. There are entire web sites devoted to building siltent PCs. If you're willing to live with largish heatsinks, it's actually not particularly difficult to do -- fans are ubiquitous because they're small and cheap and effective compared to the brute-force alternative. > I would also love it if the fans only go on when it's really needed like > gaming or maybe huge video's. Pretty much all laptops and some desktop machines do this. > Therefore what is needed is: > 1. A motherboard which can control the desktop fans and even shut them down. > 2. Processors/Graphics cards which can do the same. > 3. Special software which can regulate this or special hardware. Already done. > 4. Debuggers to make sure no evil "shut fans down during heat" is in there > to kill hardware ;) Mmm... ok... > 5. Temperature meters everywhere for safety... Already done. > 6. Emergency shutdown in case of emergency/accidental overheat. Already done (by BIOS). > 7. Fan spin up failure detection. Already done (usually by BIOS). > 8. Maybe even blocked air flow detection. Generally not worth the cost -- the system has enough thermal inertia that the overheat detectors will indirectly detect this before anything fries. > 9. Maybe even unacceptable noise detection and throttling of hardware to > reduce noise in return lower performance. Somewhat done. E.g., most hard drives have "best acoustic performance" and "best performance" modes. > 10. This would require microphones which might be too privacy-paranoya ;) So > not a good idea. I suppose so. > 11. Maybe even build in temperature displays in/on the desktop case to show > constant temperature of hardware at different locations > in the case to feel "safe" :) Already available. > Therefore producing more HEAT in winter is more acceptable... unless melting > the polar caps is a bad idea ! ;) :) To a pretty good approximation, your computer produces no more heat in winter than in summer... it's just easier to move around when when there's a large temperature difference. > So maybe ultimately HEAT = BAD = EVIL. No, "lack of heat gradients" might be bad or evil, but heat itself is neither. All the heat that will ever be is already here in the universe -- and the universe is a Good Thing -- it's just that it's slowly all mixing together, and once it's the same everywhere... we're cooked. :-) Keeping as much heat locked up in, say, chunks of coal rather than just heating up the air is rather useful. > Are intel/amd/ati/nvidia up to the task ? Yes. > Or will ARM take the cookie and the cake ?! ;) :) No. ---Joel
From: Skybuck Flying on 8 Jun 2010 21:22 Well my hardware from 2006 doesn't have all the features I would like for example: The motherboard has only one temperature sensor as far as I know ? I would like to see this increased like so: +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | PCI Express | Sensor D | | | | | | | | Sensor A CPU | | | | NorthBridge | | | | Sensor B | | | | | Memory | | | | | | | | | | | Sensor F Sensor C | | | | | +-----------------------------------------------------------+ The CPU should already have a sensor. So I want temperature/heat sensors on all critical/heat producing parts. Currently there is only a temperature reader inside the CPU and inside the GPU. I want temperature readings outside the CPU and outside the GPU to known if the motherboard is taking too much heat... I also like to be able to see which parts of the motherboard are becoming the hottest. This could vary from situation to situation/case to case/cooler to cooler etc. Software can make a nice visualization of the motherboard to help the user understand... Or simply display the reading and provide a user manual that explains where the sensors are. The sensors could also be placed more systemmatically like so: S1 S4 S7 S2 S5 S8 S3 S6 S9 Also my hardware from 2006 doesn't fully shutdown the fans ;) the spindle just slowly... Yet you say it has already be done... I doubt it... but if I am wrong...: Does anybody know a motherboard that has 9 temperature sensors ? Maybe even 12 ? ;) Also my AMD X2 3800+ Dual Core CPU definetly does not detect CPU spin-up failure ! ;) It was failing every day... I tried to put some oil in it... after many weeks it suddenly started turning again at boot time... I guess the oil finally got soaked up or so to the shaft ! ;) ? Or maybe it's a bios failure that suddenly went away ? Also I rather prefer not clunky big heatsinks... it's just heavy... risk of breaking motherboard... and it don't look so nice... it might also obstruct the airflow if it needs to scale up.... Big Clunky Heatsinks are definetly a NO-NO for me ;) :) =D <- They are windscreens... windscreens are evil inside a pc ;) :) I need all the wind I can get in my PC to cool it down... unless I am in the desert or so which I am not (yet) lol :) Well you have made some claims that some to even all if this has already be done... I highly doubt that... but please do provide links to prove me wrong ;) Lastly it's amazing to see how fast Apple has launched new products.... like 4 iphones in just 3 years ? Plus an iPad and maybe some PC like thingies... Doesn't sound like much... but I think it is... it requires all of this enginering of hardware and software... quite impressive ?!? But they probably worked very well together with others to help them out... that's probably quite impressive too :) I do wonder what happened to Steve Jobs though... he so thin ?!? Did all that WIFI give him cancer or so ?!? WOW ?! 570 wifi base stations he said during his recent presentation ?!? Wow.... that can't be good me thinks ? Can it ? :) Time will tell ;) :) Bye, Skybuck.
From: Joel Koltner on 8 Jun 2010 21:47
"Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFuture(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1fae5$4c0eecc0$54190f09$24061(a)cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > The motherboard has only one temperature sensor as far as I know ? For a motherboard in 2006, yeah, that's pretty likely. > I also like to be able to see which parts of the motherboard are becoming > the hottest. If you save up your allowace you could purchase a thermal imager? :-) > Also my hardware from 2006 doesn't fully shutdown the fans ;) the spindle > just slowly... > > Yet you say it has already be done... I doubt it... but if I am wrong...: I've seen many a laptop that completely stops its fans when they're not needed... but personally not a desktop. I don't know why... > Also my AMD X2 3800+ Dual Core CPU definetly does not detect CPU spin-up > failure ! ;) Blame your BIOS. > Also I rather prefer not clunky big heatsinks... it's just heavy... risk of > breaking motherboard... and it don't look so nice... it might also > obstruct the airflow if it needs to scale up.... Big Clunky Heatsinks are > definetly a NO-NO for me ;) :) =D <- They are windscreens... windscreens are > evil inside a pc ;) :) I need all the wind I can get in my PC to cool it > down... unless I am in the desert or so which I am not (yet) lol :) That's kinda the problem with PCs... since it's "any motherboard, any CPU cooler, any case, hopefully it'll be cool enough?" you tend to end up with a lot of brute-force solutions like big fans rather than more elegant designs where hear flow is more precisely engineered to go certain places. (Even the old IBM PS/2 line had some very nice ducting in it...) > Well you have made some claims that some to even all if this has already be > done... I highly doubt that... but please do provide links to prove me wrong > ;) Check out http://www.silentpcreview.com/ -- those guys are serious about quiet computing. > Lastly it's amazing to see how fast Apple has launched new products.... like > 4 iphones in just 3 years ? Plus an iPad and maybe some PC like thingies... > > Doesn't sound like much... but I think it is... it requires all of this > enginering of hardware and software... quite impressive ?!? People working at Apple all sign a contract stipulating that Steve Jobs gets to bowhunt you and your family on his private island if your performance review is deemed unsatisfactory. But seriously, yes, Apple's execution has been impressive -- and while I don't think that much of the man personally, one has to give credit that a large part of it is directly linked to Jobs. > I do wonder what happened to Steve Jobs though... he so thin ?!? Did all > that WIFI give him cancer or so ?!? No, but he had a liver transplant last year. Takes the wind out of most everyone for awhile... ---Joel |