Slashdot Mirror
ARM Unveils One-chip SMP Multiprocessor Core
An anonymous reader writes "ARM Ltd. will unveil a unique multi-processor core technology, capable of up to 4-way cache coherent symmetric multi-processing (SMP) running Linux, this week at the Embedded Processor Forum in San Jose, Calif.. The "synthesizable multiprocessor" core -- a first for ARM -- is the result of a partnership with NEC Electronics announced last October, and is based on ARM's ARMv6 architecture.
ARM says its new "MPCore" multiprocessor core can be configured to contain between one and four processors delivering up to 2600 Dhrystone MIPS of aggregate performance, based on clock rates between 335 and 550 MHz."
Looks like here we are pointing at server technology.
How long before we have a 64/32/16 bit vatiable word size Thumb like architecture?
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
The MPCore multiprocessor enables system designers to view the core as a single "uniprocessor", simplifying development and reducing time-to-market, according to ARM.
The opposite of HyperThreading? 4 CPU's to one instead of 1 CPU to 2?
The only thing that I can guess they mean by simplifying is that a developer would not have to design a multi-threaded application to take advantage of the other threads.
In case you were wondering what that is all about...
Synthesis of a core is analagous to compiling your software- except in an FPGA it is processing a hardware definition language like VHDL or Verilog to create the 'code' used to load the FPGA.
This is a big plus for people wanting to put a wicked fast processing unit in the core along with whatever custom IO goodies they can come up with.
Too bad its not open source, as there are other wicked fast processor cores available. For example Xilinx can license you to put a PowerPC in its FPGA cores.
Imo this new "multiple cpu's per chip" is the way forward. And the huge power savings is an added bonus. One question springs to mind though, how much performance can you gain by using this technique? i mean, sooner or later you will hit the limits of say, the memory bus or the graphics bus or whatever(speaking in layman's terms obviously), especially in environments where power consumption is an issue, and huge memory banks take alot of power to keep them refreshed. Still, i welcome the development, smp type deals can make a computing experience easier to cope with during intensive use like compiling and other cpu intensive tasks.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
Unless you are talking about power consumption. Then the speed of the core increases it a lot so it makes sense to have slower processors (unless you wanna carry a huge battery pack on your back).
But what are some uses for this.If im not mistaken this is a 32 bit architecture so it has it's limits when it comes to scaling and its not powerfull inogh for one of those supercomps so whats is the target market?
Cobalt servers were originally based on ARM processors, and were for the most part really nifty. Most palmtop and cell devices also use the processors, so my question is, why don't we see more reasonable personal computers (or blades servers) based upon this architecture. People don't use the processing capacity available to them, and tuning of storage and networking often gives a better return per dollar. Somthing along the profile of the Psion Netbook or old (or new depending upon your perspective) Apple Newton (also ARM) would be very cool and useful. Give it some cellular/WiFi tech...
You bring up an interesting point. The reason this might be valuable is because ARM processors are known for their low current and energy saving features.
Almost always when you max out the clock speed on a chip the current drain rises quickly.
From the article it can be surmised that this chip runs at a cool 2 watts running full out, and
As as aside, there are cell phones that use a dual ARM core, one doing control duty and another doing DSP work.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Let's talk some real numbers.
How will it fare against, say a Xeon with HT or 2 Opterons?
How will it stack up in price?
The purpose of having a multiprocessor on a single core is to make consumer devices (read: audiovisual stuff) more versatile, by allowing them to dedicate, say, one core to processing the signal you're watching, one to processing the signal you wish to record, one to handle the disk I/O, and one to watch over everything and make sure your favourite show is recorded without glitches.
This isn't aimed at the desktop, or at shrinking supercomputers to the size of your thumb, or any other fantasies you may while away your idle cycles with.
It's aimed fairly and squarely at the embedded and consumer device markets, where it will produce benefits, and will likely make ARM a tidy sum in license fees.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
PMC-Sierra's MIPS-based RM9000x2GL's are really neat. It's been out for some months now. I'd love to see a machine with several dozen of these.
This is one of the reasons why Linux will eventually win in the handheld/cell phone space. Unlike WinCE, Symbian and PalmOS, Linux already supports SMP. Linux is light years ahead of WinCE, Symbian and PalmOS on all all key core technology features such as SMP. I know for a fact that Linux is being used to validate these features on future ARM processors. So, companies that based their products on Linux won't have to worry about the OS running on the new processors. The proprietary OSes will be playing catchup forever. I will not be surprised if Microsoft has to redesign WinCE from scratch yet again to accommodate SMP.
I would imagine that a wristwatch that can do voice processing and movie rendering.
This would seem to hand in hand with the current thinking on on the fly OCR/language translation. I watched a show last night about a camera and PDA gizmo that could translate a road sign for you. I think that one did it via a server based imageing system. But if you do all that internal the posiblilites are endless, and hopefully not trivial, like SMP pong or really fancy ringtones.
low electical power + high CPU power == quick results and small size that does not require a radio flyer full of batteries.
You say "Incorrect," but the examples you provide more or less support his claim. Yes, oftentimes two lower speed CPUs are cheaper than one CPU that is twice as fast, but there isn't much of a reason to go SMP unless you cannot just get a higher clocked CPU.
Mind you, the guy isn't saying SMP is stupid- it makes sense in a lot of situations. But, it is something you pull out when a single, higher-speed CPU is not a possibility, whether that is the case due to lack of funds or whether a faster CPU just does not exist.
Here at work, I have a dual 500 MHz G4 which still holds it own, even with a relatively small amount of RAM, 256 MB. When this box was purchased, there was no option for a single-CPU 1 GHz box, and this is certainly the next best thing...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
One thing I've always wanted is a comparison of the general efficiencies of different processors. That is, if you made different types of processors the same clock speed, gave them equivalent caches, and ran a benchmark entirely out of cache, how would they all compare?
X86s are supposedly awfully inefficient architectures, so would they come out on bottom? Where would various ARM, xScale, 68k, and PPC processors end up?
Although x86 CPUs have scaled up to some amazing clock frequencies, it seems like their growth has slowed. Intel seems to have implicitely acknowledged this since they're dropping the P4 line for an updated P3 architecture. AMD did the same thing with the Athlon64s, which have slower clock speeds but are faster in the end.
If it turned out that an ARM at, say, 600 MHz turned out to be as fast as a P3 at 1 GHz, then I would say the ARM could leave the embedded market and could become competition in the desktop market. If such systems were significantly cheaper, cooler, smaller, and less power hungry than similar x86 systems, I think they could seriously compete.