Originally posted by schmidtbag
View Post
This is true, I bash Intel CPUs and Nvidia all the time. Manytimes it's useless rants, but sometimes I feel like there's a valid reason behind it.
My view: No matter if you have a PZL-104 Wilga, Cessna 172, Boeing 747 or a Antonov An-225 the fuel effiency and power output are important for each of those planes. Why would you produce a plane that flies 500 nautical miles when you can produce a plane that flies 800 nautical miles under the same conditions within the same budget? Similarly performance/Watt is important for all computers big or small.
I am able to make the observation that this device is marketed as "Machine Vision Embedded Computer" which explains why Nvidia is used. IMO Intel is still a bad choice because you're paying more for less performance with a higher TDP. The reason for picking Intel could be something as simple as the 3rd party motherboard designers (that has good reputation) only produce Intel motherboards, which is a totally valid if that was the case. Taking it on yourself to move the industry away from CUDA or designing a motherboard isn't an easy job. If a small company that sells niche hardware tries either of those two things it will very likely be bankrupt before achieving much. If the device was marketed as a small home server or modular CPU&GPU compute cluster then I would complain due to the missed opportunity.
So, my comment was to point out that I'm aware of these sorts of comments before they come up.
torsionbar28 seemed to get the point I was trying to make.
torsionbar28 seemed to get the point I was trying to make.

Leave a comment: