Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AMD Hardware IT

AMD's New Low-Power CPUs 321

illumina+us writes "AMD has released a new family of CPUs targeted at the portable computing market. The new CPUs, collectively named Alchemy, consume less than 1Watt of power. The CPUs have already been named the CPU of choice for Tivo's new Tivo-To-Go technology and are powerful enugh to run DivX, WMV9, and MPEG. The AU1550 consumes just 0.5 Watts at 400 MHz and the AU1100 consumes 0.25 at the same clock speed. These processors consume so little energy they don't even need a heatsink."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD's New Low-Power CPUs

Comments Filter:
  • imagine... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:41PM (#11702638)
    A Beowulf cluster of these...

    Hey, at least the power bill wouldn't kill you.
    • Re:imagine... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Already done: http://www.orionmulti.com/ [orionmulti.com] 12-node cluster built on Transmeta chips, feeds on only 200 Watts altogether. A little larger than a desktop case in size.
    • Re:imagine... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:58PM (#11703621) Homepage
      Actually low power chips are gaining popularity in super computer environments. A major cost of operating a huge cluster is power and getting rid of all the heat.

      Low power chips are therefore much cheaper to operate, and can be packed more densely as they require less cooling. The future of computing lies in massively distributed low power solutions, it simply makes much more sense than the alternatives.
  • PDA's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SlongNY ( 766017 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:41PM (#11702648)
    Wonder if these will pop up on PDA's and stuff soon..
    • Re:PDA's (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cnettel ( 836611 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:00PM (#11702931)
      OTOH, the current crop of Pocket PCs are able to decode DivX in 640x480 with ARM-based chips from Intel, even without video acceleration. It's not like this kind of performance is a revolutionary breakthrough.
      • Re:PDA's (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LuSiDe ( 755770 )
        I was thinking: Perhaps its good for competition (and hence price)?

        Last time i checked, the Sharp Zaurus was pretty expensive, especially the newer models. What was it again, like $700 for the newer model in Japan. I know PDAs sell like baked bread in Japan but still, why are these toys so expensive? A friend of mine has a CL 5500 and while its a very nice PDA it was also pretty expensive when he bought it. And, newer versions are more convenient.

        I hope to see more competition / prices going more down sin
      • Re:PDA's (Score:5, Informative)

        by iamhassi ( 659463 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @04:47PM (#11705007) Journal
        "It's not like this kind of performance is a revolutionary breakthrough."

        No, it's not, but the fact that AMD is creeping into a market that Intel currently dominates, and AMD has already declared dominance in the gaming and server microprocessor market in 2004 [slashdot.org], so this could cause serious problems for Intel if the AMD chips turn out to perform better with less power than Intel's current offerings. Sure the processors are running at slower mhz speeds but as we all know a a slower mhz AMD processor can perform at the same level as a much faster mhz Intel processor [tomshardware.com]

    • The 1100 is aimed at that market. It seems most of the line is special use - routers & various appliances.

      The 1100 Development Board [amd.com] looks like fun, though. Is it bad when you have the urge to say, "Ooohh, preeeeetty" even if you have no real use (or skill to work with) it?
    • Re:PDA's (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yope ( 656090 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:21PM (#11703923)
      I doubt they'll become very popular.
      They Alchemy family is not that new actually. AFAIR they have been around for at least 2 or 3 years now, and have barely gotten some attention from the embedded developer world.

      AMD has made inroads in the embedded processor bussiness before, with their Elan and embedded-K6 processors. Those have been moderately popular by those seeking x86 compatibility, since the Elan is a mocked-up 486 with chipset functionality and some periferals in one chip: Expensive, extremely power-hungry, slow and very modest on-chip periferals, but x86 compatible. They are mostly forgotten now.

      The Alchemy on the other hand is based on a 32-bit MIPS core (remeber SGI? Guess where their chip developers went?). That makes the Alchemy more powerful, less power-hungry, cheaper and able to include some more amount of periferals on-chip, but they are not x86 compatible.

      That leaves them pretty much out in the cold, because there are IMHO far more attractive alternatives of non-x86 embedded processors, like those based on the ARM family of cores, built by Samsung, Atmel, Philips, TI, Cirrus-Logic, Intel and many more, as well as the PowerPC based embedded processors from Motorola and IBM. Specially the Power-QUICC I and II families from Motorola cover an impressive price and performance range, offer modest to very high processing power, and unprecedented flexibility due to their second integrated RISC based communications processor and programmable bus controller.
      Those are the two most popular embedded processor platforms around these days. If you need power-efficiency, there's no better than ARM. If you need high computing performance or high-bandwith data processing, go for PowerPC. AMD's Alchemy is somewhere in the middle, but until now they only cover a narrow range of applications.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:41PM (#11702651)
    These new chips are obviously not aimed at the Canadian market, or any market that has severe winters. We use our computers to heat buildings, fry eggs and cook bacon.

    And when there's no electricity, we burn them for heat.
  • Not x86 processors (Score:5, Informative)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:42PM (#11702653) Homepage Journal
    These are based upon the MIPS32 [mips.com] RISC processor. Remember the R4000? These are 32 bit, how about that MIPS64 [mips.com] ;-)

    upgrade from your SGI workstation to a tablet today!

    • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:51PM (#11702805) Journal
      If you want x86 processors AMD already realesed their Geode [amd.com] line for low-power mobile solutions.
    • Is some sort of non-executible stack possible on this architecture?

      If I remember correctly, OpenBSD does not implement W^X on the MIPS architecture because the design of the unified data/instruction cache makes it impossible to mark pages as non-executible.

      If NX/PaX/W^X will not work on this CPU, I'd be less inclined to attach it to the internet.

    • by oboylet ( 660310 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:07PM (#11703023)
      I'm always pleasantly surprised with what AMD cooks up in addition to their x86 business.

      AMD is a much more interesting company that we geeks often realize. Too often we think, AMD=Athlon/Opteron, but I find their gadgety endeavors really interesting.

      Apple's Airport (and maybe extreme/express, dunno) has a tiny AMD processor [seanadams.com], and as the parent points out, now their playing with MIPS archs. A friend of mine worked at the fab in Dresden and said that a third of their operations had to do with flash.

      Call me a fanboy, but I sure do like the AMD kool aid. They make neato products and deserve mucho respect.

    • It was the chip that killed MIPS as an independent company. The R6000 that preceeded it was late. The R4000 was late as well. The lateness of the R4000, coupled with Blob Miller, the CEO, being more focused on writing his own "Soul of a New Machine" than the business, killed the company. As a matter of fact, the running joke at the time was that MIPS stood for "Miller Inserts Penis in Shareholders".
  • One catch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:42PM (#11702659) Journal
    I bet they aren't x86 compatable... cuz if they were... HOLY CRAP!
    • Who cares? Linux runs on MIPS, and if I remember correctly, so does WinCE. If you want small fanless x86 try the lower speed VIA C3/Eden offerings.
    • Re:One catch (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zutfen ( 841314 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:59PM (#11702913) Homepage
      Realistically, it doesn't matter much that they aren't x86. To me at least. I'm sure Linux will be running on it in no time.

      Besides, they're aiming for the PDA market, which doesn't have x86 compatibilty as it stands anyhow.

      I wonder if this technology will be adapted to the PC market in any way, shape or form. With such low power consumption, they are a fanless CPU, and a fanless power supply would probably be feasible I imagine. True silent computing sounds good to me... or is that doesn't sound...?

      In any case, it is very cool tech, literally, and figuratively speaking.
    • Re:One catch (Score:5, Informative)

      by truesaer ( 135079 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:21PM (#11703168) Homepage
      They aren't. However, AMD does have a line of x86 embedded processors known as Geode [amd.com]. For example, I see here a 400Mhz Geode consumes 1.1 watts of power. This is part of their more general x86 everywhere [com.com] plan...with x86 chips as cheap as $1.
    • If what you need is a cheap, low-current x86 workstation, consider putting a Slot-1 Pentium 3 processor into a Pentium-2 motherboard and underclocking it by say 30%

      Add a bootable PCI ATA133/SATA controller (P2 mobo's have 66/100mhz drive controllers) and a USB2.0 or firewire card and away you go. Instant cheapo mediabox or server.

      Total cost would be ridiculously low - probably less than £100 (GBP - my currency) or say $160 US?
  • FLOPS per Watt? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:43PM (#11702678) Homepage Journal
    It'd be nice to see how these stack up in FLOPS per Watt.

    Perhaps these are the chips Supercomputer manufactures should be building machines with. Sounds to be low in cost to build AND low in cost to run.

    • Re:FLOPS per Watt? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ewan ( 5533 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:54PM (#11702841) Homepage Journal
      bluegene is based on that concept, 700mhz per cpu, 12 watts, i believe it achieves something like 6watts per gflop.
    • That's EXACTLY what blue gene is. It happens to use a derivative of IBM's embedded processor, rather than AMD's, but that's the design. Each node is pretty wimpy, but make up for that by using 65,000 of them.

      It works pretty well for problems that can be cut up into 65,000 pieces. However, a lot of problems don't easily divide into that many tiles, or the work of parallelizing the problem exceedes the benefit at some point.
    • Re:FLOPS per Watt? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:06PM (#11703006)
      Probably zero.

      There's no evidence there that the MIPS32 core they used implements the (optional) floating point instructions. Of course you have to sign up for details so I can't say for sure...

      Since the video capabilities are handled by an accessory processing unit, and since they were trying to cut power consumption, I'd be surprised if there was an FPU in the general purpose core.
    • Oh, then you want the Clearspeed chip, it's 25 GFLOPS @ 5 Watts, so 5 GFLOPS/W.
  • How about laptops (Score:2, Interesting)

    by I_am_Rambi ( 536614 )
    with processors that create that little heat. That would be nice if they could clock them faster also.
  • by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:44PM (#11702685) Homepage Journal
    The writeup says you can run DivX, etc... but they don't say at what resolution or framerate. I've got PXA-255 based PDAs that can run DivX/WMV...as long as it is no larger than a postage stamp and encoded at more than 15 fps. The processor is still dog slow at stuff like compiling though. The writeup nor the articles give a good impression of exactly how fast these guys are, and that's a little worrysome. I don't mind energy efficent processors, but the last thing I want is something underpowered in my media center (oh, it can't handle 640x480 DivX, yay!).
    • by grommit ( 97148 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:49PM (#11702755)
      # Support for MPEG1, 2, 4, and WMV9 scaled up to 1024x768
      # MPEG2 main profile/main level (720x480, 10Mbps, 30fps)
      # MPEG4 advanced simple profile/level 5 (720x480, 8Mbps, 30fps)
      # WMV9 main profile/medium level (720x480, 2Mbps, 30fps)

      Doesn't look too bad to me. This was for the Au1200 btw.
    • On the subject of PDA's, I have an iPAQ 2210 (PXA255/400MHz), and it can run XviD videos of varying bitrates at a full 320x240 @ 29.97fps. I imagine the same would be true of DivX. But for some reason, my PDA will not get more than 15fps out of a WMV encoded at any bitrate or resolution. I think that's more a result of shoddy coding than processing power though.
  • how long.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by no reason to be here ( 218628 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:44PM (#11702691) Homepage
    until we can get that kind of low power consumption on desktop chips? is there something inherent in desktop applications that prevent some chip maker from making a really low-power, high-performance (~1GHz) processor?
    • Re:how long.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:51PM (#11702801) Homepage Journal
      Please look at the Crusoe Processor [transmeta.com] They consume under 2 watts and I believe they have broken the Ghz barrier.
    • Re:how long.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:55PM (#11702855)
      until we can get that kind of low power consumption on desktop chips? is there something inherent in desktop applications that prevent some chip maker from making a really low-power, high-performance (~1GHz) processor?

      Super low power consumption and ultra high speed are inherently at odds with each other. It's like the memory/speed tradeoff that programmers have to deal with. (Crusoe is up around 1GHz, but they're already at twice the wattage of these chips.)

      Remember, all CPUs had this kind of power consumption back in the day. You never saw heatsinks on CPUs until the mid 1990s. And processors in 8-bit home computers used milliwatts of power.
      • It's like the memory/speed tradeoff that programmers have to deal with

        Memory - speed trade off? Hockey pucks. Because cache memory is so much faster than going to ram, programs these days are optimized for speed BY optimizing for size!

        • Memory - speed trade off? Hockey pucks. Because cache memory is so much faster than going to ram, programs these days are optimized for speed BY optimizing for size!

          For some small kinds of problems, yes, but the classic tradeoffs still apply in a huge way. There are so many examples of this that it seems silly to even give 'em. Let's say you're writing a 3D physics package. Which is faster: (1) compute the convex hull of each object on the fly for each potential collision, or (2) precompute the convex
      • You never saw heatsinks on CPUs until the mid 1990s

        The heck you say; my 386-20 in 1989 had to have a 2 inch tall heatsink and fan on it in order to run stably at 33Mhz.

        And who claims overclocking kills? I used that rig in a variety of roles til the motherboard went out just a few of years ago. It just wasn't cost effective to buy a 386 motherboard in 2002...
    • Re:how long.... (Score:2, Informative)

      by mjm1231 ( 751545 )
      You mean like these [via.com.tw]?
    • Because it's a desktop which means there will be a nice little hole in the wall nearby that can provide you with all the power you need.
      It's easier to make a fast hot processor and just keep it cool with heatsinks/fans then to create a fast processor that runs cool.
    • It's the truth. I'd rather have a 20 watt CPU running fast then a 1 watt cpu that runs much slower, when I am plugged into an outlet.

      While I do feel as though some power conservation could be in order; if only to reduce heat and thus fan power. But I don't care about the power usage itself - if it's silent and uses 100 watts, I'm okay with that. The wall can provide enough power.

      For laptops, PDA's, phones, etc.. it's a different story. You want the batteries to last for as long as possible.
    • What do you think Apple puts into their Mac mini?

      They use a 1.3V CPU laptop style CPU in a desktop unit.

      They've been using these for years; see the iMacs, for example.
    • I'm not sure you'll be able to get down to 1 watt on a good desktop type cpu, but I'ld bet that you could get down to two or three watts.

      From what I understand, the leakage current of the 90 nm chips is noticably higer than that of 130 nm chips, so first you'ld probably start by designing your chip to use 130 nm technology. (Maybe you could used something a bit smaller, depends on how much leakage curren you want to tolerate).

      Secondly you'ld want to use an instruction set that's more power efficient to

    • The X86 ISA is another issues for low power on the desktop. That and the clock speed wars. If you want it to be PC compatable and fast you are going to get hot. People seem to be happy to have loud hot computers on there desktop.

      Think of it this way. This chip uses what 1 watt of power. A P4 uses 120+ I think.

      So you could have 100+ of these chips for the same power as one P4. Think of it as a cluster on your desktop. It would be kind of cool.
    • Take a look at the ultra low volt Dothans. You can get them such that they run low single-digit-watts. The ULV series runs from 800MHz to 1.2 GHZ, I think. This is a PIII-based chip with up to 2MB of on-die cache.
    • Re:how long.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Queer Boy ( 451309 ) *

      is there something inherent in desktop applications that prevent some chip maker from making a really low-power, high-performance (~1GHz) processor?

      Well, that depends on what you consider to be low-power. Clearly these are super low but also have relatively low MIPS compared to current processors. PowerPC has always had low power consumption. The G5 is probably the most power hungry and consumes 42 Watts at 1.8 GHz, the G4 at 1 GHz consumes 30 Watts. Compare that with x86 processors coming from Intel

    • Re:how long.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )

      is there something inherent in desktop applications that prevent some chip maker from making a really low-power, high-performance (~1GHz) processor?

      HAHA!

      What you obviously don't realize, is that Intel's LV P3 933MHz (1.15v) processor was very low power. Under 12watts, the lowest spec chip since they made 486s. Even if you can't find that specific chip, P3s and Celerons of about that speed are only a few watts more.

      If you are an AMD fan, the Sempron 1GHz proc is only 20watts, and there are plenty of AMD

  • What socket are these going to be? Will they fit into existing Mobo's? Sounds like they'd be a good chip to put into a HTPC.
  • for the record: (Score:5, Informative)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:47PM (#11702732) Homepage Journal
    These processors are new but the Alchemy name is not. AMD has been selling alchemy processors for at least a year.
  • by B5_geek ( 638928 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:47PM (#11702733)
    While I love the size and versatile nature of Via's Mini-ITX line, I have found their systems to be very unreliable.

    These AMD systems would be perfect for many linux applications;

    firewall, file servers, dumb-terminals, HTPC boxes, hell make a cluster out of 100 of them and they still waste less energy then a P4!

    It would be cool to see how a cluster like that could handle mpeg4 encoding/decoding.

    You also have CarPC's and many other options.
    I want some, can ya tell?

  • by LittleLebowskiUrbanA ( 619114 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:47PM (#11702735) Homepage Journal
    Getting these things into some decent laptops is. I only issue IBMs at my company and for good reason: the Stinkpads are built like tanks.
  • transmeta (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymouse Cownerd ( 754174 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:50PM (#11702777) Homepage
    dare i say it? this makes transmeta all the more irrelevant. once a cool company with innovative technology, now they are no more than third place runner-up in the processor company race, and falling behind fast.
  • Yeah, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    powerful enough to ruu DivX, WMV9, and MPEG

    Why on earth would TiVo be running this on the main CPU? I had thought the direction for DVR's was to offload most of the encoding/decoding to the video card/cards, no?

    It's not terribly impressive to say "can run MPEG-2 for video encoding!" when the main CPU's not doing the actual work...
    • by Moryath ( 553296 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:00PM (#11702930)
      Two words:

      NO HEATSINK.

      If you can get a video board that works with only a passive heatsink, and then run this thing with a minimal heatsink, you lower your heat problems.

      Lower them enough, and you can get a smaller fan to cool the entire unit, or even get away without a fan entirely (though given how long a TIVO has to stay turned on, it's likely you need some minimal level of guaranteed airflow to avoid overheating the unit the same way you used to be able to overheat an NES).

      But the smaller, and fewer, fans you have to put into it, the quieter it is. And living-room appliances want to be as quiet as possible, to avoid interfering with the quiet moments inside of a game/movie/TV show.
  • by corngrower ( 738661 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:50PM (#11702781) Journal
    These appear to be MIPS based chips. Sharp has some ARM based chips that are geard for similar applications and provide similar functionality. These also, IIRC, run with fairly low power and have 32 bit cores. The high power requirements of x86 architectures is due to their very high clock speeds and all the complexities of a general purpose CPU chip (mmu, floating point, cache, fancy branch prediciton logic, etc).

    http://www.sharpsma.com/sma/products/mcu_soc/LH7A4 04_splash.htm [sharpsma.com]

    • And, of course, fairly high performance per cycle. I think that even a Prescott will crunch out more IPC than a Cyrix C3. IPW (instructions per watt) is of course a different matter...

      And, just before anyone asks me to do an ARM-to-x86 comparison of IPC, that won't work. If you have a RISC architecture, of course you'll get high IPC. Make each instruction easy and atomic and you get a lot of benefits, including bogus IPC numbers for comparisons. That's why we need MIPS (not the architecture) and MFLOPS for

  • Wow these processors are going to fuel greater expansion in pc development. Alchemy has truly come of age. From an old science to modern masterpiece. wow.
  • Well done, AMD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by masterOfTheObivous ( 858583 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:52PM (#11702809)
    This might very well be AMD's next big thing. The Athlon 64 garnered a lot of attention for them, but now they've entered a new market- competing with Via's Mini-ITX series. SFF's that need the power for MPEG-4 decoding so they can be a good home theater PC would do well to be equipped with one of these. In fact, they even mention:
    "AMD Alchemy(TM) Au1200(TM) Processor - is a low-power, high-performance processor solution for Personal Media Player (PMP), automotive and Digital Media Adapter (DMA) applications.

    The implications of a low-power, low-heat solution with a lot power go beyond the home theater. The idea of "ubiquitous computing" (IMHO an awful blanket term that gets thrown around far too often) might become possible with a small but still powerful processor.

    The one last innovation that caught my eye was the on-processor AES encryption/decryption. Anyone have any ideas of practical applications for this?

    • Re:Well done, AMD (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 )
      I was thinking the same - they quote power consumption between 400mW and 1W. *ONE* watt. At 400MHz. It consumes the same as older processors like the Z80 (while smoking it in processing power)! Even Transmeta couldn't get below 5W with their crusoe line - yet, the Crusoe is x86.

      If AMD markets this thing right and performs as promised, they will make a killing out of it. There's a lot of money in the embeeded systems market.
    • A low-power firewall acting as a VPN concentrator could certainly take advantage of crypto hardware.

      Or, for the pathologically paranoid (join with me, my Pathanoid kin!), quick swap encryption sounds pretty tasty.
    • Re:Well done, AMD (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Temsi ( 452609 )
      need the power for MPEG-4 decoding so they can be a good home theater PC
      Since most people don't really need a second computer dedicated to TV watching, this could be a great for a WIFI/Ethernet box that reads videos from the main computer in the house, or even from a firewire drive.
      Small enough to put in the living room, and since it has no fan, is completely silent (provided it's diskless as well).

      Having wasted my money on the 933Mhz Mini-ITX that could barely decode mpeg2, this sounds infinitely better.
  • Blackfin (Score:2, Informative)

    by arsenix ( 19636 )
    The Analog devices blackfin is a good chip for such devices as well (it is classed a "hybrid DSP"). It consumes 280mw at 600 Mhz, and also comes in a dual core. uCLinux runs on it as well. Cool chip with similar capabilities, but definetely a different marketing angle.
    • AD likes to charge *bank* for their parts, though. I love a lot of their chips, they make some great stuff (the SSM series has some fun toys, especially), but they do charge for them.
  • by frankmu ( 68782 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:54PM (#11702848) Homepage
    i'm waiting to see if the modders will overclock these chips and put major heatsinks on them.

    that'll teach AMD!
  • One of the best thing coming from Transmeta was the low power. I wonder if this part of what was sold.
  • These are not new (Score:5, Informative)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:58PM (#11702894)

    I've had an Alchemy Au1100 devboard on my desk for over a year. The disk that came with the devboard is dated 1-27-2003.

    There is already a very complete Linux port mostly done by Montavista.

  • When these fall in price enough, and when there's a board out in Micro-ITX spec for them...

    helloooooo dashboard computer
  • no heat? (Score:3, Funny)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:00PM (#11702927) Journal
    and on my budget (computer or heat the home) how am i supposed to heat my home?
  • C'mon, we've done fried eggs [ncku.edu.tw] on a CPU, but that's not enough. I wanna cook a T-bone on that sucker!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:04PM (#11702979)
    We have ported eCos RTOS to Au1x00 and have used Alchemy CPUs in two embedded products. They have outstanding performance, good GNU tool support, and easy-to-understand MIPS risc goodness.

    One thing to watch for: The onboard peripherals are geared more to PDAs (no real watchdog, limited-feature timers, etc). You would want to check your embedded application requirements. On the plus side, the JTAG TAP makes board support and debugging a snap.
    • I wish you guys would have submitted your Au1x00
      patches back to ecos! I wanted to use redboot
      on something we're doing, but wound up using
      u-boot instead, just because I didn't have time
      to get all the scaffolding in place for redboot.
  • The Transmeta Factor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel ( 631252 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:09PM (#11703043) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps this technology comes from their strategic partnership with Transmeta [cnn.com] whom has always put great emphasis on energy conservation. Decent Google search here. [google.com]
  • So, for a PC-compatible CPU, it looks like the VIA Eden series is still on top?

    VIA Eden ESP 4000 (4.0 x 100MHz)@1.05V: 1.7W typical, 3.0W max
    VIA Eden ESP 10000 (5.0 x 200MHz)@1.05V: 6.1W typical, 7.0W max

    Unlike a previous poster, I've been running a VIA EPIA M 10000, 1.0GHz (Nehemiah) on a workstation, and a VIA EPIA V, Eden 533MHz on a server with no issues.
    • I can EMULATE x86 on a PowerPC 750 and get better performance/watt than VIA's EDEN chips. Really, VIA chips have always been seriously weak sauce, just because they can't clock them well and they use not-much juice doesn't make them superior in any way.

      The Pentium-M and AMD GEODE NX CPUs produce MUCH more horsepower per watt than VIA's chips. VIA's only advantage is that they mass-produce Mini-ITX boards and sell them to distributors. If someone mass-produced a GEODE NX bMini-ITX board, it would wipe the f
  • Implementations (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SumDog ( 466607 )
    Does anyone have links to implementations of this MIPS arch? Are there embeded versions of Gentoo or Debian that have been showen to work on this chip? Are there any media players like mplayer that are designed to support its instruction sets. What type of embeded boad solutions are there? Has anyone tried this and what are your experiences?
  • VIA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:13PM (#11703090) Journal
    Looks like VIA will have some competition. I've got a few Epia boards which I mainly use due to the low profile/power consumption.

    Once I see how well the AMD products (including the motherboards for the chip, etc) work with linux I may consider a switch. At 400Mhz equivilent they could do nicely for servers and the video capabilities would make them decent enough for small media units. Wonder how well they would handle DVD, etc playback and TV out... as my M10000 does quite nicely for that with fairly low CPU consumption.
  • by lateralus_1024 ( 583730 ) <mattbaha@gm a i l . com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:20PM (#11703162)
    Can't wait for ThermalTake to make a Copper Brick heatsink for this bad boy. I'll break the 2Ghz barrier with this. So what if my PDA weighs 15lbs, can yours run AutoCad?

  • Wristwatch Linux - cool.
    Wristwatch Linux that can boot Knoppix-on-thumbdrive - cooler.
  • An AMD CPU without a heatsink? Now that is news! Barring the old chips they used to supply to NIC manufacturers, this is practically a first for them.
  • AMD's Geode (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dfj225 ( 587560 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:41PM (#11703420) Homepage Journal
    Also of interest would be AMD's Geode line of processors, found here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolutions/Pro ductInformation/0,,50_2330_9863,00.html [amd.com]. It looks like these guys run on about 1 Watt and are x86 compatible.
  • by Pemdas ( 33265 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:34PM (#11704100) Journal

    This comes out of AMD's aquisition of Rich Witek's startup (named Alchemy). Rich Witek was one of the original guys working on the Alpha chip (among other projects). Alchemy originally targetted PDA's with their low power MIPS32 processors and on-chip peripheral support.

    Interestingly, Dan Dobberpuhl, another Digital alumnus who was influential in the Alpha project, also founded his own company to make MIPS based processers, though for a slightly different target market. That company was SiByte, and was acquired by Broadcom in 2000 or 2001. He has since moved on to start PASemi, which seems to be in the same general business.

    Digital may be gone, but it's engineers are still making waves!

Trap full -- please empty.

Working...