Slashdot Mirror
AMD's New Low-Power CPUs
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."
I bet they aren't x86 compatable... cuz if they were... HOLY CRAP!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I like high powered processors.
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.
Letter To Iran
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?
my pet machine
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.
This guy is way out there
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?
Ya know what. It's not obligatory, it's stupid now.
It was funny for the first 500 stories someone did it on, now it's just dumb. As is saying something is obligatory, give it up people... it's not funny anymore.
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.
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.
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.
-- All that's left of me, is slight insanity, whats on the right, I don't know. -- Bob Mould
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 since i'd love to see the GSM (as in, a telephone) integrated with the PDA (as in, basic simple office work, e-mail synced, WiFi/UMTS) with a multimedia player (preferably also Vorbis-compatible). I want 1 device which is small enough but also gives me the features i want to have without using a beast such as a laptop and without having 1 device like e.g. the GSM which can phone (what i actually want), SMS (expensive!), play retro games (boring!) without the features i also would like to have.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
It seems to me that its about high efficiency, not low power. Merely having a low power chip does not help a supercomputer if you need that many more of them to get the same performance.
Generally, the relationship between compute power and power consumption for a single chip is super-linear. So, for well-parallelizable problems, using more chips that are individually less powerful helps you with overall power consumption.