![Handhelds Handhelds](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/handheld_64.png)
![Hardware Hardware](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardware_64.png)
Single-Chip x86 Chipsets Around the Corner? 170
An anonymous reader writes "Kontron, a giant among industrial single-board computer vendors, yesterday revealed a credit-card sized board apparently based on a single-chip x86 chipset that clocks to 1.5GHz and supports a gig of RAM. It targets portable devices — not x86's usual forte. Kontron isn't saying whether the board uses a Via or an Intel chip(set) — both vendors reportedly have single-chip chipsets in the works, part of their respective missions to drive 'x86 everywhere.'"
Great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
"generic" embedded devices come to mind. ( but you have the pc104 standard there already..
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to "unseat" anyone. I think it would be great if it makes enough of a market for itself sufficient to support continued development. It's possible to make a profitable product even if it's not #1 in the market segment.
I thought AMD had a product like this though.
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Interesting)
If they can really pull off a good, stable, low powered chipset in the 1.5 ghz range.. I would be very interested.
I am still waiting for a revival of the handheld computers. UMPC isn't going anywhere, Palm is getting out of most hardware.
HP is FINALLY getting back into the handheld market, but it's WAY late for it's projections and dosen't seem to be doing any advertising at all for it's new line.
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can really pull off a good, stable, low powered chipset in the 1.5 ghz range.. I would be very interested.
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, what it doesn't say anything about is whether it's higher performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right. Because more gigahertz means faster.
That is a fallacy big time.
One game is to just clock up the frequency and make you think you have more. Put a divider in the middle and I could give you a 20GHz CPU. It is about throughput. How much can I get don in n cycles. For this, benchmarks are where it is at. Pick a benchmark(s) that is similar to the anticipated loads and work from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's a falsehood, not a fallacy [tri-bit.com]. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, and doesn't actually mean that the conclusion is incorrect. My personal favorite example of a logical fallacy is to suggest that, in order to reduce 16/64, you simply cancel the sixes. Of course, that's total nonsense, but the result (1/4) happens to be correct.
Incidentally, you do realize that the person you were replying to was being sarcastic, and pointing
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This SOC might be a breakthrough for x86 embedded, hard to tell since there's virtually no information on the specs. But based on previous history, pretty much the only reason for choosing x86 for embedded has been compatibility with existing
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great idea (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean something like the Pandora [openpandora.org]?
Also, more information here [bluwiki.org].
While it's technically meant more for a gamer market like the GP2X, the arm + linux + wifi + usb host + decent resolution screen might make it a more general purpose machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Crap idea (Score:4, Insightful)
ARM, and at a push MIPS, PowerPC and SH4 own this space. x86 needs to offer something huge to get back in the game.
Re:Crap idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Other x86-specific assumptions inherent in code (like atomic writes of different sizes, context switches limited to instruction boundaries) means that a platform porting of seemingly good multithreaded code can cause very subtle bugs. It's even possible to write Java code that is almost impossible to turn into a race condition on x86, but where you might do it on other platforms. You might argue that it's rare or that the code is "bad" and incorrect in the first place, but it's still there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But i do agree there is a large x86 codebase out there. ( but then again, there also is a decent sized codebase for ARM and other embedded processors )
x86 cores? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:x86 cores? (Score:4, Insightful)
God bless the USA where competition between GSM, CDMA, & what ever sprint uses has increased innovation such that the USA always has the best cellphones out of any civilized country.
Not that I don't think in
And Theo's quote can be found here: http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Virtualization_Security [kerneltrap.org]
"x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."
Long response:
I present to you, the rule of profanity: The use of profanity in any kind of prepared statement is proof positive of the weakness of the underlying argument.
It may or may not be true. But it's perceived as true by many, if not most, so it might as well be true. And in this case, poor Theo shot himself in the foot.
Profanity is used to add weight to a statement, but it's a very crude, rough kind of weight. As in "Oh shit, I've just been shot!" can be said by anybody, because being shot is, well
The future is here (Score:1)
Merry Christmas, and thank God for all you engineers that bless us with this stuff.
Who's in charge of code names? (Score:5, Funny)
That was the best code name they could come up with? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That was the best code name they could come up with? Seriously?
Given what they probably had to do in the area of patent licensing, calling it a "John" is pretty polite, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
* Luke
* Esther
* Nehemiah
and I'm sure the others I can't remember off the top of my head are biblical names too.
Re:Who's in charge of code names? (Score:5, Funny)
* Luke
* Esther
* Nehemiah
I'm still looking forward to the Satan and Whore of Babylon chipsets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power consumption please? (Score:3, Insightful)
It targets portable devices -- not x86's usual forte
Yeah, that's not x86's usual forte because x86s are more power thirsty than say MIPS or ARM, which is why it would be interesting if the article could mention how much this new thing is supposed to drain.
Re:Power consumption please? (Score:5, Informative)
How about a better summary first? (Score:4, Informative)
You're right that even low-powered x86 chips like the C7 and the Geode line are generally no match for ARM and XScale. MIPS I'm not as familiar with for power usage purposes. It'd be nice if that question was answered, but I'm afraid it'd be summarized incorrectly too.
2005 article on anx86 SoC [windowsfordevices.com]
another 2005 article about a different x86 SoC [linuxelectrons.com]
2004 product page for an already obsolete x86 SoC [st.com]
Linux Devices list of x86 SoC solutions, some dated to 2000 [linuxdevices.com]
2000 Register article about the year since Cyrix released an x86 SoC [theregister.co.uk]
Chipslist page showing availability of AMD processor with 80188 features plus DMA, watchdog timer, serial ports, and I/O pins in 1995 [chiplist.com]
article on the National Semiconductor Geode (the owners of that line before AMD bought it) thin client system-on-chip [encyclopedia.com]
And the best proof of all: an archive of a 1996 story on the AMD Elan,which featured a 386, ISA bus, serial UART, memory controller, power management, and PLL hardware ON ONE CHIP [findarticles.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But is it worth switching from ARM? (Score:2)
Although I am not a developer, so I am anxious to hear what people in this thread say regarding any technical advantage having x86 may have over say ARM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty comfortable in the ARM space now though and would not likely consider a new x86 project over an ARM unless Performance demanded it. Thus far it hasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's opensource, recompile it FFS.
Things like OpenWrt have been doing this for years.. architecture doesn't matter to well written code. Even my own humble efforts run on all sorts of arcane platforms.
'x86 everywhere.' (Score:4, Funny)
It's VIA (Score:5, Informative)
Previous VIA CPU codenames:
Samuel
Esther
Nehemiah
Ezra
Note also that VIA combined a C3 CPU and a northbridge into a single package - it was codenamed "Luke".
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Z.
What would it take? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What would it take? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything (Score:1, Insightful)
Literally.... *EVERYTHING*.
Including saving your (and my) miserable soul from going to hell.
Re:What would it take? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, Buddha makes incremental backups. Somebody's sig said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A chip called God would have to be omnoprescent and omniscient.
So it would be freaking *huge* but have shitloads of memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the chip is codenamed John, as the article claims, it's a VIA chipset.
Not to bruise your karma, but I suspect people are going to get the wrong idea from your post.
Here are the two quotes FTFA:
1. "It is based on an unnamed "highly integrated chipset" from an unnamed silicon vendor."
2. "Via has long planned to bring out a single-chip part in its CoreFusion line. Codenamed "John," the processor will integrate CPU, northbridge, and southbridge into a single x86-compatible SoC (system-on-chip)."
AFAIK, Via & Kontron have nothing to do with each other.
TFA is not stating that K
Sounds like a bad idea to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I pass on that? The x86 architecture may be POPULAR, but it's inefficient, forced into backwards compliance with horribly outdated standards, and has been horseshoed for the past 20 years into a full architecture chip when the initial design was never meant to become like this.
If a realm of computing has x86 as the non-dominant chipset, I think that's a blessing and it should remain that way. You can't do anything about the PC market at this point, for example... but I think the motto should be "x86 only where it already exists" rather than "x86 everywhere."
Re:Sounds like a bad idea to me (Score:4, Insightful)
The "x86 architecture" doesn't exist. x86 merely describes an ISA exported by the microcode of whatever underlying architecture a given chip really uses. An ARM chip could look like an x86 chip. A PPC chip could look like an x86 chip. The Core2 or Athlon64 could just as well export a traditional Motorola ISA as the chosen x86 - and with modern chips, they could do so with a microcode patch at boot time, you wouldn't even need to buy a new chip!
Thus, any holy wars regarding its efficiencies or inefficiencies must remain firmly rooted in the ease of actually using it for coding. I do so, and find it for the most part adequate. It traditionally lacked enough GP registers, but even that doesn't hold true these days (at least for AMD's version - Not 100% sure about the Core line). And for that matter, very few coders even bother with ASM anymore... Even firmware development (which I also do) uses C almost exclusively nowadays.
Not to say I want to see it everywhere, but we can't really hold the flaws of ancient hardware with no current connection to the ISA against it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My earlier post may have sounded more caustic than I intended it, but I meant what I wrote literally.
A "x86 chipset" just describes the supporting chips (usually memory, bus, and I/O) that let the CPU-which-happens-to-speak-x86 do its thing in a way familiar to programmers and users of non-embedded
but x86 chips aren't really x86 anyway (Score:2)
They can't be completely decoupled of course, but it's hardly like x86 chips are designed by taking the ISA and literally implementing it in silicon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This common belief that x86 is the devil is simply absurd. It sounds good
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess techies seem to like to complain about it, but it's generally not really a problem.
ARM has been doing pretty well where extremely low power consumption is neceesary, but that seems to be its only advantage. For getting a lot computation done affordably, it doesn't look like x86 even has any competition anymore. There's stuff like the Cell, it's expensive and where it sounds like it's even worse to program than x86, then there's Niagara, sounds
next generation laptops (Score:1)
PCMCIA sized, interesting (Score:2)
Now I'm wondering if this form factor isn't aimed at being able to add more processor power via a Cardbus slot, as the dimensions are within a millimeter of a PCMCIA card. Or perhaps aimed at mating directly to a SSD device. Fully equipped PC the size of a deck of cards, just add input and output.
x86 programming (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was programming for Apple
In 1996 I was delighted when the palm pilot came out, using a 68328 (68k instruction set). It was like a renaissance, again programming in assembly and hacking other things for fun. Now, once again, it appears this will be dead!
As a question to the slashdot community, is it possible to program "naked" x86 assembler? I have never really put in the time to learn it, but it just seems exceedingly complex and tedious to program for this chip without use of a higher level crutch (C compiler...) I am sad that once again everything I know is becoming outdated...
Re: (Score:2)
Z
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't do 8086 asm much though, most of my code is C, though I write to 65C02 asm once in awhile.
-uso.
Re:x86 programming (Score:5, Funny)
You sure are outdated. Today's "higher level crutch" is Python.
Re: (Score:2)
You choose the language to suit the task. Design the app, pick the best language (and you'd be amazed how many projects C/C++ are the only choices.. eg. Java simply doesn't exist on some of the platforms I work on). Unfortunately it's not fashionable to do that any more and people start with the language then design the app ar
Re: (Score:2)
i.e., crutch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More info for x86 in embedded dev. at arstechnica (Score:5, Informative)
Return of the Son of Pentium in 2008? Intel's new ultramobile processors [arstechnica.com]
Intel's low-cost "Diamondville" CPU to power OLPC/Eee PC mobile category [arstechnica.com]
And a very interesting article why processor makers want to extend their architecture to other realms: Beyond the BlackBerry crowd: life in a post-32nm world [arstechnica.com]
where to find cheap small LCD (Score:2)
A small board is great, but a 4-5 inch screen would make a killer do it yourself pda / mini-computer.
Why no x86 microcontrollers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Similar parallel offerings from Intel were the 80196 line.
x86 should be like slavery in the 1820 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:x86 should be like slavery in the 1820 (Score:5, Insightful)
You were wrong. x86 isn't particularly impressive, but it's just a CPU, not a war crime.
It's pretty much inevitable that x86 will move into new areas, as embedded systems need more and more processing power for multimedia, x86 vendors spend more and more of money reducing power consumption, and the economies of software development more and more favor reusing x86 software, rather than spending time on optimizations for the other architectures you use.
Since Intel can't seem to make money on any architecture other than x86, they've eliminated their StrongArm/XScale line, and are replacing it with ultra-low-powered (sub-1watt) x86-based CPUs. VIA has long be trying to make inroads in the high-power, higher-performance embedded market with their own CPUs as well.
Didnt Cyrix try this a decade ago? (Score:2, Interesting)
There goes the neighborhood... (Score:2)
Ah, nothing like ubiquitous insecurity...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap! If only there were a way to partition the address space into data and code parts, and have the processor enforce that! Oh wait, there is [opengroup.org].
Wow, this is news (Score:2)
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/06/07/via-mobo-is-smaller-than-a-business-card [theinquirer.net]
-Charlie
x86 everywhere? Naaah ..... (Score:2)
There'll be a new open RISC architecture along soon enough. It's a matter of time before the early-generation ARM patents expire, thus removing one of the barriers preventing wider adoption (it's a nice enough architecture, ARM just got greedy with their licencing). Every instruction being 32 bits long won't matter now memory is so cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Low cost PC and Media Centers (Score:2)
Today you can buy a motherboard with integrated audio, video, network, sata, usb, etc... the next step is to have everything on 1 System-on-Chip (SoC) rather than multiple chips.
The motherboard would only have two chips: 1 x86 SoC, 1 flash for your bios. Thats it, then its just a bunch of slot for your DRAM some connectors and your done.
I hope not. (Score:1)
Re:I hope not. (Score:4, Interesting)
pico itx is already on the maket, the mainboard is about the same size (1.5ghz [like that means anything], upto 1gb ram):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico-ITX [wikipedia.org]
and the transmeta crusoe processor (which implemented x86 in software) has been out for almost a decade now. The sony picturebook has a credit card sized motherboard along the left side of it's case:
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&q=sony+picturebook&btnG=Search+Images [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pico is also obsolete (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)