Slashdot Mirror
Via Unveils 1-Watt x86 CPU
DeviceGuru writes "Taiwanese chip and board vendor Via Technologies has introduced a new ultra-low voltage (ULV) processor aimed at industrial, commercial, and ultra-mobile applications. Touted as the world's most power-efficient x86-compatible CPU, the 500MHz 'Eden ULV 500' processor debuted at an Embedded Systems Conference in Taipei this week. Via says its chip draws a minimum of 0.1 Watts, when idle, and a maximum of 1 Watt, making it a great candidate for consumer electronics devices such as UMPCs, PVRs, and such."
How does this chip compare in performance per watt against ARM, PowerPC and the like?
The article doesn't say what socket and interface the chip uses. Are they still on Socket 370?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
A really low-power Dothan or single-core Yonah will sure draw a few multiples of this beast, but they will do so while giving much better performance.
My mythtv PVR uses the MII12000 (1.2GHz), which is rated at
20-30W. With HDD, DVD, encoder card etc, it draws 80W on start,
and somewhere between 30-60W when running.
Take 10-20W off my figures by using their 1.5GHz ULV
and you get potentially more processing power at less
than 50W!
I know that VIA chips are pretty feeble (i.e. their 1.5GHz
chip is probably closer to a 1GHz intel chip), but with an
encoder card (dual actually) I can be recording two
channels with the CPU at 10%. Given their mobos have
mpeg decoders on board, I can add watching a DVD or TV
for another 30-40% CPU time.
The only thing is ad-skipping and re-encoding are pretty
slow.
Why not make 64 of these on a single chip? 64W + some additional overhead shouldn't be bad.
Put this in SBC (Single Board Computer) form together with wireless support and a nice sized flash hard drive would make it ideal for applications such as home monitoring and other uses around the typical house for us home automation geeks.
I construct, install and maintain automatic weather stations at remote sites. They are solar-powered systems usually. I've mostly been using the 533 MHz Edens since they were first released and been very happy with them. Although I don't make much use of the video decoding, I've yet to run into any problems with these CPUs, or mini-ITX systems in general.
No driver issues and the documentation has been more than adequate for my needs. The total cost of these off-the-shelf consumer-level setups is a fraction of that for an equivalent embedded system and can do more than just log and transmit data from a weather station, something techs and operators appreciate when they're working on them at remote locations.
Let's not forget that not everybody is fixated on kick-ass in-car theater systems, or uber-1337 gaming rigs.
There are lots of uses for a CPU like this. I, for example, run a VIA CPU/mobo in my truck. It draws very little current which means my auxilliary battery will run the computer for a lot longer. It also produces less heat than my AMD/Intel options, which means the computer needs no fans, which also saves power and keeps the system quieter. I run Windows XP on there as pretty much all the good GPS software runs on Windows. An ARM chip wouldn't do me much good there, unfortunately.
I agree though, this chip is never going to be the financial success that the Core2 is.
www.clarke.ca
I mentioned 1.6L more as a way of showing that the scale goes up proportional with engine size. I have a 1.3L car (a Citroen C4 coupe) which has no trouble at all on Irish roads even with passengers. Naturally there are still luxury vehicles, SUVs on the roads, but the overall emphasis is generally on what Americans probably call compacts - hatchbacks, saloons and so on. Most of those are probably 1.6L or less with a lot of 1.3, 1.2 and 1.1 size engines. If you drive around in a 3L SUV in Ireland you're going to be raped by the tax man.
(I've found discussing car performance where USians can eavesdrop always leads to flaming. Still...)
In Denmark, a sizeable chunk of the total car park are small or family cars with engines in the 1.3-2.0L range. Sporty cars (Alfa Romeo et al, not Ferrari) are probably in the 2-3L range, no more. Of course the SUV-style cars will have way bigger engines (but I suspect that's more to help push the ego rather than the car).
A relevant tidbit: we pay ~7$ per gallon of petrol.
I drive a VW station wagon. It's 4 cylinders, 2L, 115bhp, ~1500kg. I don't have the stats for 0-60 (or 0-100) because I just don't drive that way, but its accelleration is quite adequate even without going over 3000rpm (usually I stay within 900-2500). I think I hit 4000rpm maybe three times a year. I average 7.3L/100km, or 32.2mpg.
My old car (Peugeot 206) had 1.4L and 75bhp to push its 975kg, and its performance was quite comparable (better low end, worse top end).
I lurk on an american classic car forum, and the rule of thumb there seems to be "(at least) 1bhp of power per 10lb og car", which translates to >300bhp for a station wagon, which again translates into race car (ok sports car) performance. I can't help wondering if that is really necessary for a family car, or a classic built for cruising.
"Good news, everyone!"
'' 1.6L is considered big? I have a 2L 4cyl Focus in Canada, and that's considered "small" by our standards. Not that I really push my car, but I am curious as to how a 1.3L accelerates [to say hwy speeds]. Because even in my car I have to really floor it [re: 5000 RPM] to hit highway speeds before I exit the ramp, well that's exaggerating a bit. usually I hit speed before the dotted lines (that let you get out of the merging lane). So I probably could accelerate at like 3-4K RPM just fine. ''
Get a Diesel engine. Massive torque = massive acceleration. Not that much horse power, but that only matters at high speeds (100mph+) where you lose your driving license anyway.
In the UK, tax goes by carbon dioxide emission per km, engine size doesn't matter. There is a small number of cars that pay £35 per year, others pay between £115 and >£200 tax per year. But there are other differences: At the moment, you pay a £8 charge every time you drive into London. In the future, that will be free for cars with very low emissions, and up to £25 for very high emissions.
But the thing that really hits is company car tax. If you have a company car, you have to pay income tax on X percent of the value of the new car every year. X ranges from 15% to 35%, depending on carbon dioxide emissions. For a £20,000 car, you pay tax on £3000 to £7000, depending on emissions. At 40% tax rate, that is £1200 to £2800 tax, in other words up to £1600 punishment every year for high carbon dioxide emissions for a £20,000 car.
With the relatively low cost and high availability of computing speed nowadays, the green500 list might become very important, as it is not only the environment-friendliness but also a lot of the running cost that is involved here.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
I, too, do not agree with the GP's idea of actually taxing high-power computers, but I do think he might well have a point in just rating the computers after their power usage. If people buying computers see some real statistics of how much it is going to cost them in electricity to run their new computer, it is very likely that they are going to choose after that criterion, which will drive manufacturers to make more power-efficient computers. Which is good, because if they make computers that draw less power, then I, too, could get one of them and pay less for electricity (and having them run longer on the UPS :).
What if one combined such a processor with a standard Intel or AMD one, which would normally be deactivated, but be activated whenever you need high performance? That should give you the best of both worlds: Low power while doing normal, performance-insensitive stuff, and high performance when you need it. E.g. if you are a gamer, the Intel/AMD would be off while reading mail (doen't need much performance), but would be started when you start your games.