Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Desktop Computer To Use Intel's XScale

Posted by timothy on from the if-it-does-what-you-need dept.

Ian Chamberlain writes "Drobe, the leading RISC OS portal, has reported the release of Iyonix, the first desktop computer to use Intel's XScale processor. The XScale is now famous for its increasingly widespread use in PDA devices, used because of its low power consumption and high performance processing. The Iyonix runs a new 32bit version of RISC OS, the operating system orginally developed by Acorn, but now owned by Pace." The same site links to a pair of reviews (one translated from heise.de) of this machine. RISC OS is also what powers the solar PC mentioned a few months ago.

6 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I don't get it... by SerpentMage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok fair enough, but at 1299 Pounds, why would I want to do this? It really does not seem to be that useful in a bigger picture context.

    Had this been a tablet PC at 600 USD, well then that is an entirely different ball game....

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  2. why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole point of the XScale is to save power through voltage scaling. Voltage scaling involves reducing the CPU voltage(and the CPU performance) during tasks that aren't time-critical, and during system idle time. This doesn't make much sense on a desktop machine for two reasons:

    1) For desktop systems power is cheap and readily available and
    2) For most desktop systems, the CPU consumes a small fraction of the entire system power. Even the fastest P4 uses like 70 watts, where the entire system might consume something like 250-350 watts. So even if we reduced the CPU wattage to zero, we still would only get about a 1/4 or less improvement in overall system power.

    So, why put an XScale in a desktop system?? Ideas anyone??

    1. Re:why?? by benzapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, why put an XScale in a desktop system?? Ideas anyone??

      Given the rather high cost of this device, I would venture to say the primary purpose of this device is for folks who REALLY need one, say developers of software for the Xscale processor. With all the PDA makers switching the Xscale, and ATI making their PDA graphics chips, some might think these things will take off.

      Why not emulate it? AFAIK, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to emulate RISC processors on the x86 architecture. Perhaps it is even difficult to emulate one risc architecture on top of another, such as Xscale on PowerPC.

      One thing is for sure, at that price, this is a vertical market product. Not many people need it, but those who do will pay a lot for it.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    2. Re:why?? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "1) For desktop systems power is cheap and readily available and
      2) For most desktop systems, the CPU consumes a small fraction of the entire system power. Even the fastest P4 uses like 70 watts, where the entire system might consume something like 250-350 watts. So even if we reduced the CPU wattage to zero, we still would only get about a 1/4 or less improvement in overall system power.
      "

      Ohhhh Kayyy...I'll have to go ahead and... disagree with you on that... yea...

      Joking aside:

      1) My parents own a house out in the woods that we go to sometimes to stay. It has no electricity. The only power available is solar energy and a generator. What if I want a desktop computer, or more than one, up there? I suppose I could use a laptop. but still, this machine is going to have more features and possibly better power management and definately use less power. When your household has a maximum # of watts you can use at any given time, then this becomes a BIG issue.

      2)Do you think it is financially viable to have 1, 2, 3, more 70W light bulbs running continuously inside your house? Unless you have a grow room full of dank bud, I would hope not. So that 70W could be saved while the CPU is idle, or half idle, or 1/4 idle... (which is nearly 100% of the time). My household has 5 computers combined, 3 of which run 24/7. It woud be nice for them to use CPU power only when needed. (The same principle holds true to your energy star monitor that goes into sleep mode and "instantly" wakes up upon use). After all power saving features are enabled while in idle state (fans slowed, monitor sleeps, hard drives spin down, cpu slows, etc..) that 300W just turned into 10-50W, somewhat like a nightlight. When under half load, sure, the HDD spins up, monitor uses 20-300W (CRT v LCD) but you can still reduce the electricity used even while you USE the machine. If you are word processing, and you have 3 cpu's running in your house, you could be using 10W per cpu insted of 70W per cpu.

      Other uses are in the server room. Obviously, TCO is a big concern, and the electrical bill is a very very large part of the TCO. Remember, the Crusoe CPU was designed and is marketed mainly because of this exact feature.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
  3. noise. by neurojab · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much noise does an XScale CPU setup generate vs and Athlon? I'd be willing to bet that the Xscale runs much cooler, requiring less noisy heat-dissipation mechanisms, and making the PC suitable for places like the bedroom, livingroom, or say, the office...

    I don't know, but to me the noise factor is a really big advantage.

  4. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because you have spent the last 6 years using ARM machines, and your companies process is built around the software that runs on them.

    Surprisingly, Joe Punter PC User isn't the market these guys are aiming for.