Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Auto Industry's Fastest Processor Is 128Mhz

Posted by kdawson on from the hot-in-here-or-is-it-me dept.

afabbro writes "GM stated that the 2011 Buick Regal will have the auto industry's fastest processor: 128Mhz, and 3MB of flash. 'Three meg of flash memory and 128MHz clock speed doesn't sound like a lot in terms of computing power until you consider the environment these controllers have to live in. Our controllers are made to operate reliably up to 260 degrees (127C) and down to -40 degrees (-40C) for the life of the vehicle.'"

10 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. This is cool, but not revolutionary... by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    128MHZ for a rugged CPU for automotive use is a good thing, but clock speed is just one of many factors. TFA was a tad light on information and worded as an ad (which is to be expected from GM's press website), but other than just mentioning vague details and the fact that Freescale made it, this doesn't really mean much without factoring in other details.

    Will this mean the 2011 Regal will be leaps and bounds over the 2010? Yes. How much is debatable.

    Will this matter in the total scheme of automotive technology? Not really. ECMs have been improving each year, so the 2011 Regal may have a bump in the control CPU's clock speed, but perhaps some other car maker would have a different architecture in place (multiple modules controlling different functions such as PATS/antitheft, O2 sensor, fuel sensor [1], etc.)

    Will other car companies have improvements in their technology? Assuredly. Ford has some new engines going in the mainstream line of vehicles. Other vehicle makers may be bringing diesels to the US.

    The big question in all of this: Is there a car example I can go on here?

    [1]: I'm sure all cars in the US will eventually be going Flex-Fuel (talk about bumping gasoline from 10% to 15% is happening in some places here in the US), so having the circuitry in place to handle varying amounts of ethanol will be crucial.

    1. Re:This is cool, but not revolutionary... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This progression is to be expected. But the thing people should be asking is: does the new Buick ECM have an interface exposed that third parties can build readers for? Is there an assessable API? Probably not, so all this power will only be available to dealerships.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:This is cool, but not revolutionary... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Other plants can be used to make ethanol, but it's not being done widely. When cellulosic ethanol is workable on a mass scale, then the value of ethanol production might change to something that's of a net benefit to society.

      All agriculture not based on returning the shit to the fields is inherently harmful. It amounts basically to hydroponics in a dirt (not soil) medium. Feeding humans without maintaining the soil has already destroyed much of the planet's arable land to the point where there would be worldwide starvation without exports from the Americas or acres of land dedicated to greenhouses and hydroponics in the nations where the food is eaten. All of which, just like the so-called "Green Revolution" farming used by big agribusiness today, is based on oil; synthetic fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, all the plastic that it's all made of, and all the energy to run it around. Topsoil-based fuels will lead us directly to a future where only the rich can afford to eat real food, which will be produced on hillside farms in locations too remote to factory-farm.

      Consequently, as you say, only cellulosic ethanol is of a benefit to society. The analyses of ethanol's net energy value don't even take damage to the soil into consideration.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:This is cool, but not revolutionary... by toddestan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the same situation as the original poster where I work. The problem is that the 15 year-old PC has some specialized ISA (or MCA) cards and interfaces with some old hardware. Virtualization to run the software does nothing for you when you still have to talk to physical device.

    4. Re:This is cool, but not revolutionary... by mini+me · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is the problem: The break even point on corn is roughly $4.25 per bushel. Before the big ethanol push, corn was selling for, if you were lucky, $3.00 per bushel. That is a sizeable loss that farmers were eating on ever bushel produced.

      I hear you saying, "well, don't grow corn then. duh." While it would be great to grow the crops that people actually want to consume each year, mother nature is not so forgiving. Crop rotation is essential to farming, and that rotation through the corn belt includes corn. Other cropping options would see farmers taking an even larger loss over just taking the hit on corn.

      So, yes, in a way I suppose it is a subsidy to help farmers. On the other hand it gives Americans a way to use up the excess crops that the farmers were growing anyway, into a product Americans desperately need. I will add that the price increase had to come one way or another. Losing $1.25 on each bushel of corn is not a sustainable business. It is a pretty serious issue for anyone who likes to eat food produced by farmers. Up here in Canada we were on the verge of completely losing the majority of agricultural industry only a few years ago. The ethanol push is the only thing that saved us.

      The actual product of Ethanol may have no benefits, but the Ethanol industry is what has been keeping the agricultural industry stable enough to provide food to me and you. I, for one, am quite thankful for that.

  2. Re:-40? by OnePumpChump · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Uh, yeah, you are. Sometimes you've got to park all day someplace without power outlets.

    It's bad for the engine, and a bad habit to get into, but on older cars (good ones, anyway), you could, assuming a good charge on the battery and the starting system in good working order, start them at LEAST as cold as -50F, without block heaters.. (That being the coldest I ever did it.)

  3. Re:30MPG 1952 MG Convertible by Loualbano2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "On the other hand, it also weighs twice as much as the MG and handles like it, so good luck avoiding an accident that he could."

    The Corolla probably handles better. See this article about an autocross race between an 2003 Honda Odyssey, a 60's Porsche 356 and a 60's Jag XKE.

    http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-revenge/

    ft

  4. Sounds like plenty to me... by commlinx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Three meg of flash memory and 128MHz clock speed doesn't sound like a lot in terms of computing power

    Guess that depends on your point of view, a car travelling 360Km/Hr is travelling 100m/s, so in a millisecond travels 10cm or about 4 inches. Assuming one instruction per clock cycle you can do a lot of useful stuff with 128,000 instructions, or put another way probably about one million for every revolution of the wheel

    3MB of FLASH is huge as well when you aren't loading a lot of crap like multimedia, not that it would run Linux but I just took a look at the last kernel I built for an embedded platform and it came in under 2MB with quite a generous set of modules loaded.

  5. Re:30MPG 1952 MG Convertible by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a much newer 1975 MGB and it got hit by a pontiac 6000. There was antifreeze all over the ground where the cars made contact and the women said she was sorry for breaking my cute car and making it leak. I opened the trunk to make sure the spare antifreeze was still in its bottle and it was. The only damage the accident caused my car was it realigned the frame. The impact also fixed the trunk light switch some how and another light started working again so my car came out better. Her car had to be towed away.

  6. Re:30MPG 1952 MG Convertible by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An MG actually has thicker gauge steel than nearly every post 2000 passenger vehicle on the road and it's reasonably strong steel too (probably nearly as strong as the high strength low alloy stuff used in thinner panels today) because the body IS the frame and chassis. The things are very heavy for their size. On the other hand a more modern car that crumples far more easily in a crash is absorbing a lot of the energy that was be breaking the bones of an MG driver.