Super Embedded System CPU Core - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 03:28:39 am
content: maybe my question will be a dumb one, just as the topic:i've seen/read several type of dev/eval embedded board using from as simple as PIC and Atmel to more advance ARM and CPLD and FPGA.now the stupid question that i'm wondering...is there any or possibility of embedded system using "at the edge of the line" "multicored super high speed" CPU such as Intel Pentium Core 2 Quad, or Mac CPU etc?well... i dont know! but will be glad if there is any

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 04:03:05 am
content: You could just use a normal PC motherboard. But x86 really is too inefficient for embedded. The Cell processor looks like a better choice if you're after high speed.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 05:51:20 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 28, 2010, 04:03:05 amcell processor? any example?i'm thinking an embedded Pentium that we can program in specific IDE from another PC, just like AVR ISP or pickit2, without the hassle with Operating System programming, Windows OS start up delay crap etc. and we can turn off the display to save battery, go as light as possible in term of PCB and accessories weight. but still can accept keyboard input if we connect it to. USB and sound support. RAM and HDD upgradable just like normal PC, and easier to connect to other "more physical system" like motor and its control, relay, led another MCU thru USB, SPI, UART etc etc.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 05:59:38 am
content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)You can get embedded Pentiums from a few different places. I used 486 boards from Compulab -http://compulab.co.il/all-products/html/products.htm, and it looks like they have Pentium-M and Atoms now.The segment is probably not large enough to warrant a complete IDE environment like the Arduino, when the attraction of using something like this is that you *can* use an operating system like Linux or VxWorks. If you're using a powerful CPU, why not use an operating system?

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 06:30:44 am
content: i got the Atom 330, but more toward PC based, i'm not sure if i can modify it to become an embedded system. i would like to connect it with my Arduino, but currently thru USB, its not so efficient. better if i can get it thru SPI or even UART. i would like to cut the "big big" VGA/Ethernet/USB connectors and change it to bare wires to decrease weight. maybe take out the PCI Express connector if i dont need it. modify the PSU. I wish the motherboard could have been smaller, more packed. and i dont like the idea that it has to run Windows. but i guess maybe i should learn on how to build my own Operating System

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 06:35:11 am
content: If you need very high performance, why not use the PCI Express bus?As a compromise, the Beagleboard is quite high performance, has all the standard connectors, is very small, exposes GPIO ports, and can be connected to nice breakout boards such as this one:http://www.tincantools.com/product.php?productid=16149&cat=0&page=1&featuredWhy not use Linux? It can be tweaked to boot up within seconds and is free and easy to develop for. Windows is a pretty awful choice for embedded systems.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 06:57:26 am
content: The Beagleboard? yup! thats seems interesting. But whats the 1,200 Dhrystone MIPS. Is it the same as 1.2GHz CPU?, i'm looking to something like that small. If i want to multicore it, i just can simply buy 2,3 or even 4 of it. and also i need large... very large amount of RAM, and HDD space (to the GB size) as one of the main mission is to program and process 2D and 3D imagery, store many of them, and large databases to be used by the program.How to program the Beagleboard?Linux? errr... never touch them

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 07:02:43 am
content: this one seem interesting too...http://compulab.co.il/ipm/html/ipm-cm-datasheet.htmmy Atom 330 is something like this:http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/motherboards/d945gclf2-d945gclf2d/d945gclf2-d945gclf2d-overview.htm

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 07:10:20 am
content: if i want to install the Linux Embedded (is there any such thing) in the Beagleboard, is there any IDE C++ that i can use to develop the program?that cell cpu is also interesting, very small.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 07:32:59 am
content: MIPS stands for Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed. It's a 600 MHz processor, but you can't directly compare it to an Intel processor. However it's most certainly not as fast a Core i7. Are your processing requirements integer or floating point? In some cases, particularly parallelisable ones, you might consider using a GPU. Unless you have very strict size and power requirements, a normal PC motherboard is probably your best bet for very high performance work.Linux can be run on embedded computers with real time extensions and no display, or on desktop computers, and everything in between. There are a bunch of C/C++ IDEs such as Eclipse, NetBeans, KDevelop, etc.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 10:35:32 am
content: Quote from: joelby on July 28, 2010, 07:32:59 ammy processing requirement will includes... well, lets just say alot of floating points operations, + hunky funky software algorithms + AI decision making etc and any top notch of piece of software that current software engineering and technology could offer? WHAT?! nvm, i just dont want the hardware become the bottleneck, ie when my software needs a space in RAM or HDD/Flash, it is there. and i need as fast as the MIPS can go to make millions of calculation and to make decision in split second. something like Core 2 Quad will do. the 600MHz will do as well, if the price is right.its like building a NASA project on budgeted expense. Think thats not gonna, right? but 1GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 1GB HDD/FLASH will be comfortably acceptable, can go as low as half of it, 500MHz 500MB. multicore is also much preferable. I think my Atom330 will just comfortably meet that requirement, except i'm looking if any out there that is "smaller" and specifically designed for embedded system. and that Beagleboard will be so so (compared to Atom), but ok albeit interesting, if looking at the size and price.the least thing that the software will do is graphics... i think. so GPU is not important.for power requirement, i think more powerful CPU will lust more power, so i guess we cannot runaway from it, i need more processing speed? then i have to feed it with more power.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 12:28:14 pm
content: Quote from: joelby on July 28, 2010, 07:32:59 amYes and clock speed doesn't equal MIPS.I'll expand on that a bit more. MIPS just means the number of instructions it can execute per second. The trouble is, it doesn't state what kind of instructions, for example t takes a lot more computer power to perform a complex floating point operation, such as a cube root, than it does to simply add two integers together.

author: MTron
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 02:02:38 pm
content: Quote from: shafri on July 28, 2010, 10:35:32 amI think what joelby was referring to was using a GPU as the main processing unit. If your data/instruction set has a lot of parallelism then a GPU is the best option as they are constructed from the ground up to do massive amounts of parallel calculations, and since the big players in the GPU market have been tailoring their architecture to allow a greater ease of use in using a GPU as a processor unit for non graphics work, it might be a viable option for you

author: squeezee
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 02:21:16 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on July 28, 2010, 12:28:14 pmThe op saidDhrystoneMIPS, which is different from just plain MIPS and does (mostly) account for what is being executed (it's also an integer benchmark). Of course the resulting numbers are still largely meaningless with regards to actual performance.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 02:58:35 pm
content: hmmm. then what shown in the specification is just garbage, maybe buying it and try it out is the only way to know how much performance it got.@MTron&joelby: thanx for the GPU info, will study that later as currently i have no idea how to execute codes using GPU.@squeezee: the "Dhrystone" i got from the spec, have no clue what it was... so its just sort of a standard benchmark thats not relevant to the real execution of the codes, i guess.

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 03:38:30 pm
content: Linux is a biiiiig player in the embedded market now, especially with ARM devices such as the Beagleboard. You can even get a version of Linux for the super cheap ARM7 TDMI chips. The Beagleboard is quite a mature product now, and the ARM has evolved further. 1GHz devices are appearing, with multi-core versions being readied for release. $26 will get you an A8 Cortex based TI Sitara at 1GHz with integrated graphics.http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/am3715.html

author: scrat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2010, 10:33:54 pm
content: Quote from: joelby on July 28, 2010, 07:32:59 amAs far as I know, MIPS measure becomes quite meaningful if you consider processors requiring always the same number of cycles for each instruction (or mostly). Usually DSPs have this property, but also some MCUs do (most instructions of PIC, for example, take 4 cycles, so you can say that if it is running at 48 MHz, it makes 12 MIPS). Of course, the fact that it has or has not -for example- a hardware multiplier is crucial.For complex architectures, speed comparison is almost impossible, since it depends on the particular program, surrounding hardware (RAM for first) and compiler used, so MIPS becomes "Meaningless ...". However, if comparing similar architectures (8-bit vs. 8-bit, 16-bit vs. 16-bit, floating vs. floating) and similar instruction sets, one can have an idea of which has better performance.For example, usually in DSP they speak in terms of MACs (multiply-accumulate operation), which is the most common operation necessary for filters. So for 32-bit architectures (typical) or floating-point, you can look at each processor's MACs of FLOPS (FLOating-point Operations Per Second), and estimate if they will execute the needed agorithm within the specified time.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2010, 03:35:00 am
content: Without knowing a lot more about the intended application it's impossible to speculate on what sort of processor or architecture you need. The best bet is usually to prototype the software in a high level language - often something like Matlab - profile and optimise algorithms, then do some calculations or simulations to figure out how fast a thing you'll need to run it.

author: scrat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2010, 10:03:09 am
content: Quote from: joelby on July 29, 2010, 03:35:00 amI agree. I think simulation is often underestimated as a valuable tool...One way is to take a development kit, knowing something about its capabilities, and then experiment on it. It's faster, but can result in a big frustration if only at last you realize that it is not feasible on that architecture.The alternative approach is to simulate first. With Matlab you can accurately simulate algorithms (froma a schematic point of view or as language, even in C) and then calculate how many resources it will use on a certain architecture (this last will probably rely on your capabilities). For some processors, there are also tools for automatically translating schematic algorithm description into embedded code (even for DSPs like C6000). I never used them, and their licences cost a lot, but there is the possibility.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2010, 11:40:12 am
content: thanx for the info pals. alot i can learn... anything better or other than the beagleboard? suggestion?the cortex AM3715 seem interesting too, new 1GHz low power... but i got bad experience and feeling about buying directly from TI

author: Chris_R
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2010, 04:48:17 am
content: Hi Shafri, I think we'd be able to help out more if you told us what sort of thing you're trying to do. Intel CPUs aren't the same as PIC and AVRs because they're complete microcontrollers with memory and peripherals included. A seperate Intel CPU would require a BIOS, RAM, varying controllers and peripherals to be added manually which is a lot of hassle.If you're just looking for a board to play about with then as people have already said the beagleboard has got very good reviews and feedback. But if you are looking to develop for a specific application then you should let us know what that is first so we can make suggestions

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2010, 05:07:12 pm
content: something like arduino, or the beagleboard, but the power of GHz processor and RAM and FLASH at the price of not too much than a well spec'ed PC. the problem with the Intel PC based, well... you have said it, a hassle to connect to just a simple motor, let alone for a complete humanoid robotics with complete senses like a human (colorful vision, audible voice, ears etc) + gyros and fancy accelerometers. and the AI and decision has to be made in software. But if the beagleboard is the only most powerful thing at that smaller size, then that one is to be consideredi'm not really into a specific need and rush, more toward asking suggestions. I never heard and saw the beagleboard until somebody above mentioned that

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2010, 09:44:06 pm
content: Maybe you need something like thishttp://www.marvell.com/products/processors/embedded/kirkwood/88f6282-3_pb.pdfIts used in this devicehttp://plugcomputer.org/David.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2010, 11:15:27 am
content: cool! but still more like a PC interface to me with those PCI's SATA etc and only 1 USB. it got 2 SPI n UART though which is better.but wait... is that 15mmx15mm the whole thing? the mini plug thing is the whole processor? unbelievable! whats the price?

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2010, 11:21:31 am
content: well, i saw it sells for $99 for the wall plug, but 110/220V is not what i have in mind. more raw, more portable and more bare chip is more preferable and should be cheaper than the $99. awesome, if this is true. a huge jump in processing power vs size vs price.