Slashdot Mirror
Auto Industry's Fastest Processor Is 128Mhz
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.'"
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.
Environment similar to mil spec, durability like industrial, prices like consumer products.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
128 MHz should be enough for every car.
rewriting history since 2109
Today while I was filling up my 2003 Corolla with gas, a guy drove up to the next pump in his 1952 MG convertible. Which gets 30MPG. My Corolla gets 27MPG.
--
make install -not war
-40F is equal to -40C
Your GPS unit is not an "automotive cpu"... It is a consumer product fitted into a car.
The automative processor is what controls your fuel injection, ABS and other such functions.
There is a world of difference between the two.
3 years or 25 000 miles...
While the engine is running though? Show me someplace that gets 260F for that high end. It's talking engine temperature, which will likely stop working at low enough temperatures regardless of cpu when things actually do freeze...And when the engine is working, will keep warm enough to run properly anyway.
And didn't have to compete on commodity cost. Your point?
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.)
And how is the environment of a built-in GPS really significantly different from the ECU? [...] Perhaps it's not expected to be fail-safe...
But that's the whole point, isn't it? Your vehicle isn't a useless lump of metal and plastic if your GPS unit fails.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I agree with AC - name one current (2010 or 2011) American vehicle (I'll even grant trucks, including the over the road tractors!) with a carburetor. As a matter of fact, name one made since 1999 ...
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.
Since we are talking about GM, I guess they could put in an uncooled Athlon XP. That would best match the CPU MTBF to the useful life of the vehicle.
But the 386 does a specific task. It's adequate for the purpose. Might as well stick with it.
The environment may not be significantly different, but think for a moment about driving your family car down a mountain road. Would you trust your family's life to a device that was manufactured to be sold for ~$150? Compare the result of a GPS device failing during this scenario vs. the ECU that controls ABS, stability programs, traction control, etc.
I for one am glad they are not using the latest and greatest in electronics for automotive ECU's. You need something PROVEN to be reliable, something that ALWAYS works. You absolutely do not need the fastest available microprocessor in these systems. Every microprocessor has faults and errata, and these need to be well-known so that faults can be handled in such a way as to not crash the system. You must also consider that the more complex and large any system becomes, the more time (and money) it takes to PROVE the system can handle faults without crashing. Debugging a system with 3MB of memory is far easier than one with much larger amounts.
Reliability is FAR more critical in ECU's than it is in your average desktop. If a program crashes on my desktop, at worst I've lost a bit of work since the last time I saved my data. If an automotive ECU crashes, it puts people's lives at risk.
Summarising, a modern turbodiesel is inherently about 25% more efficient than an equally modern gasoline engine. With old and crude designs like, say, carb hemi V8s, the Diesel has more like a 2:1 advantage. The remaining 5% comes from the fuel.
Sheesh, kids today. Get off my lawn.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I think the whole point of safety systems on cars are for the majority of drivers on the road that haven't been through any experienced training and/or haven't had to experience wheel lock up or a slide in a car.
To add, I had a teenager pull out of his driveway yesterday with me about 150 feet away. I was on my motorcycle, and it's the first time that I somewhat did a panic stop and mashed the rear brake a little hard. Since I've taken the motorcycle safety course - and was given opportunity to do the same on the smaller bikes - I feel that I had the bike under good control, even though the squeal of the tire caused me to jump a little. In this instance, where my mind isn't truly thinking and my body is just reacting to "I don't want to hit this kid" ABS would have assisted in not sliding the rear end of the bike.
Even a somewhat experienced driver/rider (I have about 2500 miles under my belt on a bike, countless more in automobiles) has situations to where computer aided vehicle control will help. Are they required? No, but they definitely make you feel more comfortable if you find yourself in a situation that you don't expect. Not having ABS / traction control or stability control in a vehicle isn't a bad thing, and to reinforce your statement somewhat - you just have to acknowledge that you should go slower and be more cautious. The variable that you cannot control though is other drivers unexpected maneuvers when traveling no matter the vehicle.
Karnal
I've seen all kinds of cars and tractors start in temperatures getting near or below -40 degrees. Some times that meant the transmission got busted.
As a teenager in northern Canada, I learned that you need to warm up the transmission as well as the engine in extreme cold. A friend of my dad's forgot this lesson and and had to replace his car's automatic transmission.
In extreme cold, you can protect your transmission by putting it in neutral for a few minutes. This gets the transmission oil moving (and warming) without engaging more delicate mechanical parts. Do not leave an automatic transmission in "Park".
BTW - While several minutes of idling in neutral during EXTREME cold conditions are required to warm the transmission, 90 seconds of idling is all your engine needs. Any extra idling time is for only for the driver's comfort (i.e. warms up the cars interior )
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Yes, I *do* ignore the label issue, because I simply don't care. By 'case-by-case', I consider on a case-by-case basis whether I like individual artists, regardless of what label type they chose to go with.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.