Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When will ARM motherboards be available?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Arm motherboards will be available in the 70's.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers

    Comment


    • #17
      Now

      ARM CPU in a Mini-ITX Carrier;

      http://www.secoqseven.com

      I think these ARE the Droids you are looking for!

      Comment


      • #18
        False logic in wanting an ARM motherboard

        Computing is computing, whether the CPU is ARM or x86, and ARM's only claim to fame is it's low power consumption.

        Since desktop and pseudo-embedded computers don't run on batteries, an Atom or Via Nano should suffice your needs while being cheaper, running more s/w and having greater peripheral compatibility.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RonJohn View Post
          Since desktop and pseudo-embedded computers don't run on batteries, an Atom or Via Nano should suffice your needs while being cheaper, running more s/w and having greater peripheral compatibility.
          A lot depends on what else is in those ARM SoCs.

          We were playing 720P H.264 on 200MHz ARM chips with some hardware assist in the SoC back in 2005. My Intel Atom system can't play it reliably, though the Ion plays 1080P fine because it offloads the decoding to the Nvidia GPU.

          Oh, and I believe those were $20 chips in bulk. So that's probably cheaper than an Atom and certainly cheaper than Ion.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RonJohn View Post
            Computing is computing, whether the CPU is ARM or x86, and ARM's only claim to fame is it's low power consumption.

            Since desktop and pseudo-embedded computers don't run on batteries, an Atom or Via Nano should suffice your needs while being cheaper, running more s/w and having greater peripheral compatibility.
            Rapsberry Pi and stuff ARE cheaper. A lot cheaper.
            And yes, while x86 might be comfortable at the time for end users, it has always been a thing to the Linux people to reach out for new architectures.
            NetBSD and Linux will run on every thing that can distinguish between 0 and 1.
            It is neccessary that we reach for more architectures, and then more hard- and software will follow.

            By the way some years ago intel and amd were running a MHz race with no consideration for power uptake. Embedded device coudln't afford that and used small RISC architectures. Then, Transmeta (not really x86) and VIA stepped on and built x86 compatible chips in the lower enegry range. Finally amd and intel followed and did something about their power uptake. Still amd's Z-xx/C-xx/E-xxx arch or intel's atom is not in the range of some ARM or MIPS chips. Maybe more powerful on several tasks but sometimes you don't need lots of GPU or CPU power, just the right dimensions e.g. for a small handheld, storage device or network router.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RonJohn View Post
              Computing is computing, whether the CPU is ARM or x86, and ARM's only claim to fame is it's low power consumption.

              Since desktop and pseudo-embedded computers don't run on batteries, an Atom or Via Nano should suffice your needs while being cheaper, running more s/w and having greater peripheral compatibility.
              For the price of an Atom you can get the best quad ARM they're selling :P

              Comment


              • #22
                Hopefully we can see some new 64 bit ARM chips in somewhat higher clock speeds (2GHz or so) in a quad-core package. Such a chip can easily beat the x86 arch in speed and be much more power efficient so these can be made into small formfactor desktop PC's or even media centers. With low power we may not even need much in the way of cooling.

                I for one would LOVE an ARM desktop and look forward to seeing this "old" architecture become the new wave of the future!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                  Hopefully we can see some new 64 bit ARM chips in somewhat higher clock speeds (2GHz or so) in a quad-core package.
                  What I would love to see is how many cores and at what speed an ARM processor could pull off within the same power envelope as an x86 chip.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Maybe this thing is what you want (approximately) :

                    http://blog.laptopmag.com/usb-stick-...ndroid-station

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      What I would love to see is how many cores and at what speed an ARM processor could pull off within the same power envelope as an x86 chip.
                      I would like to see something like this too

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Probably inaccurate

                        Here is a very rough comparison of Core Count/GHz.

                        An Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown (32 nm) 3.333 GHz @ 6 Cores 130 W TDP

                        I could not find much info on TDP for a 1.5GHz Dual Core ARM CPU (Qualcomm SCorpion was my example) however I found a few sites stating ARM CPU's rarely go over 2W at fullload, so I will take a maximum of 4 W for 1.5Ghz Dual Core (This includes the GPU as well :P).

                        For Intel CPU, Watt/GHz = 130 / (6 * 3.333) = 6.5 W/GHz = 0.154 GHz/W

                        For ARM CPU, Max Watt/GHz = 4 / (1.5 * 2) = 1.3 W/GHz = 0.769 GHz/W

                        ARM = ~ 5x GHz/W of Intel x86.

                        So for 130 Watts, Intel has total: 20 GHz, ARM has 99.97 GHz

                        However, nVidias new Quad Core ARM SoC (4 Core) will preform roughly the same as a Intel CoreDuo (2 Core), both in the region of 2-2.5 GHz.

                        However, the Core Duo architecture was improved on a fair bit in terms of Performance/GHz, and then the first i3/i5/i7 were a a good step up from that, and then Sandy Bridge, and now Ivy Bridge soon are steps above that again in terms of performance/Ghz . So a Quad Core ARM is level to a Core Duo, meaning it could not get anywhere near a new Intel Series chip, and the question is whether at the same TDP, it could outpreform it or not?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          GHz per Watt doesn't make much sense.
                          Remember AMD's quantispeed arch/rating?

                          And here you are comparing RISC vs. CISC design. This is too much difference for a GHz per W comparison.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Adarion View Post
                            GHz per Watt doesn't make much sense.
                            Remember AMD's quantispeed arch/rating?

                            And here you are comparing RISC vs. CISC design. This is too much difference for a GHz per W comparison.
                            Well it does, because I was showing (roughly) the comparison in terms of GHz available to each architecture by TDP, but I also mentioned the differences in the architecture performances; The Quad Core ARM comparing to and old Core Duo Intel in performance (Like 3 architectures old if you do CoreDuo -> Core 2 Duo -> First i series (Nehalem etc...) -> Sandy Bridge. Anyhow someone had asked about it, so I gave one answer.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              First of all ARM is as strong as Atom: Atom=2.4dmips/mhz ArmA8=2dmips/mhz ArmA9=2.5dmips/mhz. All previous CPUs have half the procPower of a SandyBridge/mhz. Arm28nm goes up to 3GHz and has Neon acceleration for GPUs (1core=48gflops/GHz). Second, Arm has A7core which is 5 times smaller than A9 and 20 times smaller than Atom, this will lead in 20-40core CPUs till end 2012, plus Arm has V8-64bit. Third, Cisc does not mean complex instructions and Risc does not mean simple ones. The first letter C or R refers to the relations of the instructions. Cisc=Complex relations wile Risc=family relations. This means that Risc can run many instruction by one unit wile Cisc can't. Risc run different instructions by one unit wile Cisc needs different units: float to fpu and integer to alu and else to else. Risc run them with the same way (like FMAC) wile Cisc have different ways. Cisc will never be Risc and Cisc does not decode anything in Risc mode, that's a common error. Risc will always be 40 times better in performance per watt and per dollar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson This CPU in L3C part has 1instructionTflop or 12streamTflops per 20W plus emulation and 3D instructions.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                                Hopefully we can see some new 64 bit ARM chips in somewhat higher clock speeds (2GHz or so) in a quad-core package. Such a chip can easily beat the x86 arch in speed and be much more power efficient so these can be made into small formfactor desktop PC's or even media centers.
                                They're not going to beat any modern amd64 based chip for some time. A 2ghz ARM is nowhere near comparable to a SandyBridge or even a Bulldozer in terms of raw power. Aside from just the difference in interconnects (say, built in triple channel DDR3-1866 and PCI-X 2.1), the branch prediction, SIMD units, and so on are just not there in the ARM chips. Gigahertz just don't matter that much (try comparing a 2.2ghz i7 to a 3.4ghz Bulldozer, for instance).

                                Power consumption will be lower, and performance per Watt may even still be way better, but raw performance will not be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X