Mobile devices are already available with GPU's up to 32GFLOPS.
Maybe, but are they also accesible for the programmer? I was greatly disappointed when I learnt that the praised and "powerful" GPU of the Raspberry Pi is locked down by NDAs and NOT available for the programmer for OpenCL or GPGPU. I think the same is true for the PowerVR.
I have looked around quite a while and have not found a readily available board with a GPU that could be programmed (OpenCL) and is powerful enough for real-time image/vision processing. Not sure about the Tegra 4.... ?
I really like the parallella project. Due to its low power consumption (2 watts for the 64-core version), it is the only option to bring significant processing power to mobile devices (e.g. mobile robots/quadrocopter/drones) and would be ideally suited to implement machine vision and neural network/machine learning algorithms for those mobile devices.
That said, their kickstarter initiative has some serious flaws:
1. They are only offering the 16-core version for a goal of $750k. The much more interesting 64-core version is available only if a whopping $3m goal is met. Way out of reach for such a specialized interest project. And everyone who reads information about the parallella reads about the "sexy" 64-core version everywhere but can only fund the "just nice" 16-core version. From the comments it is clear: everyone wants the 64-core version. 2. There is only one interesting pledge: $99 for the 16-core version. No addons. No extras etc. 3. The information from adapteva is lacking. Only today they made the documentation available. But still there are no demos and dozens of questions in the comments which are unaswered.
Compare this to a greatly successful campaign like for example the Digispark (a low cost "mini-arduino"): a lower easily reachable goal, lots and lots of extras and addons developed together and in response to the backers and a constant information and communication with the backers. I wanted to spend $20 on this project but finally spent $70 because of all the addons and how responsive the team was to the backers. Digispark achieved more than 6000% of its initial goal!
That said, what would I suggest for the Parallella kickstarter:
1. Go for the 64-core version. Bring the goal from $3m down to say $1.5m by dropping the 16-core version (should save almos $1m) and some bank loan (if you can present >1000 backers who pay >$1.5m that should be no problem. 2. Offer more than just a 64-core parallella for $199. Offer special version for a higher price. Offer a dual-64-core version (with two epiphanies on it). Offer a "compute cluster": a little laser cut box with a network, a power supply and slots for up to 8 parallellas. Offer those cluster equipped with 1-8 parallellas. Offer a "machine vision" parallella with a camera sensor attached to it.. and so on.... 3. Be more open and communicating with the community. Answer all questions in the comments. Put up some polls what backers want. Provide demos/tutorials etc.
Please don't take this personally. But i would really like to see this project succeed..... and I want machine vision and a neural network brain for my quadrocopter (yep, world domination... that's the plan!);)
It always comes down to the application: the i7 and i3 you mention consume how many watts?... Impossible if the "real-time image processing" mentioned above should be done on a mobile device (mobile robot/drone). The 64-core epiphany only consumes 2 watts (in words: TWO!)!
Yes, that's true. But unfortunately i cannot plug your Radeon or GTX into my mobile robot or quadrocopter in order to give them machine vision or neural networks/machine learning "brains" (at least not with some serious improvements in battery technology!).
So, what are the alternatives to bring the current vision algorithms to mobile devices/robots? The Parallella is the only option I am aware of.
For these types of mobile applications, you should rather compare the Parallella with Raspberry Pi or Arduino. And guess who wins this performance comparison!;)
100nm process?... Well, if you had read the information provided you would know that the 16-core version from the kickstarter is done in a 65nm process and the 64-core version is done in the 28nm process in cooperation with Globalfoundries.
And for the GPUs: yes, i know that a modern GPU (or even a core i7) is more powerful. But, I unfortunately I cannot plug a modern GPU into my mobile robot/drone/quadrocopter in order to do things like real-time vision processing/neural networks/machine learning/AI. The epiphany consumes something between 2-5 Watts (in words: TWO watts for 64-cores). I am currently not aware of anything coming close to the performance of the parallella for the mobile vision processing applications mentioned above.
PS: I know that the raspberry pi has quite a powerful GPU. But its GPU is locked down by NDAs and NOT accessible for OpenCL oder GPGPU.
Sounds interesting. Is it possible to use the ceramic lens as glasses (the ones on the nose) or contact lenses? Thinner yet more robust glasses would be cool for the shortsighted. Any information if development in this direction is going on?
Just curious: What happend to the famous Mars face popular in the late 80ies/early 90ies. I think it was just a natural landscape which coincidentally looked like a face on this particular picture because of the shadows. However, I haven't heard anything from the "face" for a long time. There should be other pictures from the same location by now. How do they look like? Are they on Marsoweb (can't get to the site it's/.ed)? Anyone with more information?
> What's left? Voice is the only thing that really comes to mind, but that has obvious limitations
What are the obvious limitations of speech input? For me this is not so obvious. Todays mobile CPUs are strong enough to run a speech recognition engine. You would still need a headset though (because of background noise). But, actually speech input is what we all want, isnt it? You could blow away all grafitti, keyboards and jog dials when it comes to input speed.
there is one alternative you forgot when saying TeX or Office are the only options: LyX (www.lyx.org) combining the best of TeX and WYSIWYG.
Currently, the LyX team is working on GUI independence. Once this is accomplished, there will be several frontends (xforms, QT, GTK) and LyX could be easily integrated in KOffice. Then you've got Kword for letters, memos and the like and K-LyX for your professional needs (thesis, scientific papers,...). I am looking forward to this !!! LyX is the KILLER app when it comes to professional document processing!
I remember Star Trek: Voyager when Species 8472 attack the Borg destroying several planets and almost whiping out the entire Borg civilization. When a Borg cube allies with Voyager they speak of trillions of Borg killed in the attack.
The Borg negotiator was Seven of Nine who is freed from the Borg at the end of the episode.
So how does a solution with Linux + Microwindows + FLTK compare to either a X based solution or embedded QT?
Anyone with facts or even figures?
Thanks, Chris
now to put it all together, a GUI for a Linux PDA needs some kind of graphics output, a window manager and a toolkit. The solutions can be distinguished on whether they are based on the Linux framebuffer or on some kind of X-server. Thus, The following options for Linux GUIs are available:
1. based on framebuffer (without X -- but all these options contain window manager and toolkit)
- embedded QT
- PocketLinux (JavaGUI)
- www.microwindows.org
Personal Comment: Java brings my desktop machine to its knees (Pentium 133, 81MB) so it is probably not suitable for PDAs. Embedded QT is the most advanced solution, further advantage easy "porting" of KDE apps (binary compatible!). Could please s.o. comment on microwindows (which also sounds interesting)?
2. based on X
X-server: TinyX or full-blown X
window manager: twm (www.handhelds.org), pdawm, swm, aewm (see message #79)
toolkit: GTK (henzai.com), FLTK (www.fltk.org or agendacomputing.com)
Comment: I did not quite get the distinction between TinyX and X. At first, a solution with X-server seems to be bloated with a lot of features one might not need. However, message #79 from handhelds.org sounds very promising.
Did I forget something or did I get s.th. wrong?
What is the right way to do? With or without X? How does a solution with X compare to embedded/QT? And what about microwindows?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes yes yes ... looks great :) ...
The 64 cores version is still out of reach though :(
Mobile devices are already available with GPU's up to 32GFLOPS.
Maybe, but are they also accesible for the programmer? I was greatly disappointed when I learnt that the praised and "powerful" GPU of the Raspberry Pi is locked down by NDAs and NOT available for the programmer for OpenCL or GPGPU. I think the same is true for the PowerVR.
I have looked around quite a while and have not found a readily available board with a GPU that could be programmed (OpenCL) and is powerful enough for real-time image/vision processing. Not sure about the Tegra 4 .... ?
I really like the parallella project. Due to its low power consumption (2 watts for the 64-core version), it is the only option to bring significant processing power to mobile devices (e.g. mobile robots/quadrocopter/drones) and would be ideally suited to implement machine vision and neural network/machine learning algorithms for those mobile devices.
That said, their kickstarter initiative has some serious flaws:
1. They are only offering the 16-core version for a goal of $750k. The much more interesting 64-core version is available only if a whopping $3m goal is met. Way out of reach for such a specialized interest project. And everyone who reads information about the parallella reads about the "sexy" 64-core version everywhere but can only fund the "just nice" 16-core version. From the comments it is clear: everyone wants the 64-core version.
2. There is only one interesting pledge: $99 for the 16-core version. No addons. No extras etc.
3. The information from adapteva is lacking. Only today they made the documentation available. But still there are no demos and dozens of questions in the comments which are unaswered.
Compare this to a greatly successful campaign like for example the Digispark (a low cost "mini-arduino"): a lower easily reachable goal, lots and lots of extras and addons developed together and in response to the backers and a constant information and communication with the backers. I wanted to spend $20 on this project but finally spent $70 because of all the addons and how responsive the team was to the backers. Digispark achieved more than 6000% of its initial goal!
That said, what would I suggest for the Parallella kickstarter:
1. Go for the 64-core version. Bring the goal from $3m down to say $1.5m by dropping the 16-core version (should save almos $1m) and some bank loan (if you can present >1000 backers who pay >$1.5m that should be no problem. .. and so on ....
2. Offer more than just a 64-core parallella for $199. Offer special version for a higher price. Offer a dual-64-core version (with two epiphanies on it). Offer a "compute cluster": a little laser cut box with a network, a power supply and slots for up to 8 parallellas. Offer those cluster equipped with 1-8 parallellas. Offer a "machine vision" parallella with a camera sensor attached to it
3. Be more open and communicating with the community. Answer all questions in the comments. Put up some polls what backers want. Provide demos/tutorials etc.
Please don't take this personally. But i would really like to see this project succeed. .... and I want machine vision and a neural network brain for my quadrocopter (yep, world domination ... that's the plan!) ;)
It always comes down to the application: the i7 and i3 you mention consume how many watts? ... Impossible if the "real-time image processing" mentioned above should be done on a mobile device (mobile robot/drone). The 64-core epiphany only consumes 2 watts (in words: TWO!)!
Yes, that's true. But unfortunately i cannot plug your Radeon or GTX into my mobile robot or quadrocopter in order to give them machine vision or neural networks/machine learning "brains" (at least not with some serious improvements in battery technology!).
So, what are the alternatives to bring the current vision algorithms to mobile devices/robots? The Parallella is the only option I am aware of.
For these types of mobile applications, you should rather compare the Parallella with Raspberry Pi or Arduino. And guess who wins this performance comparison! ;)
100nm process? ... Well, if you had read the information provided you would know that the 16-core version from the kickstarter is done in a 65nm process and the 64-core version is done in the 28nm process in cooperation with Globalfoundries.
And for the GPUs: yes, i know that a modern GPU (or even a core i7) is more powerful. But, I unfortunately I cannot plug a modern GPU into my mobile robot/drone/quadrocopter in order to do things like real-time vision processing/neural networks/machine learning/AI. The epiphany consumes something between 2-5 Watts (in words: TWO watts for 64-cores). I am currently not aware of anything coming close to the performance of the parallella for the mobile vision processing applications mentioned above.
PS: I know that the raspberry pi has quite a powerful GPU. But its GPU is locked down by NDAs and NOT accessible for OpenCL oder GPGPU.
are pacemakers really powered off by infra-red remote controls???
Sounds interesting. Is it possible to use the ceramic lens as glasses (the ones on the nose) or contact lenses? Thinner yet more robust glasses would be cool for the shortsighted. Any information if development in this direction is going on?
Just curious: What happend to the famous Mars face popular in the late 80ies/early 90ies. I think it was just a natural landscape which coincidentally looked like a face on this particular picture because of the shadows. However, I haven't heard anything from the "face" for a long time. There should be other pictures from the same location by now. How do they look like? Are they on Marsoweb (can't get to the site it's /.ed)? Anyone with more information?
> Microsoft isn't going to be able to force half of the web servers in the world to switch over
Why not? They already forced 100% of the clients to switch over. Remember Netscape?
> What's left? Voice is the only thing that really comes to mind, but that has obvious limitations
What are the obvious limitations of speech input? For me this is not so obvious. Todays mobile CPUs are strong enough to run a speech recognition engine. You would still need a headset though (because of background noise). But, actually speech input is what we all want, isnt it? You could blow away all grafitti, keyboards and jog dials when it comes to input speed.
Hi,
...). I am looking forward to this !!! LyX is the KILLER app when it comes to professional document processing!
there is one alternative you forgot when saying TeX or Office are the only options: LyX (www.lyx.org) combining the best of TeX and WYSIWYG.
Currently, the LyX team is working on GUI independence. Once this is accomplished, there will be several frontends (xforms, QT, GTK) and LyX could be easily integrated in KOffice. Then you've got Kword for letters, memos and the like and K-LyX for your professional needs (thesis, scientific papers,
Hi,
I remember Star Trek: Voyager when Species 8472 attack the Borg destroying several planets and almost whiping out the entire Borg civilization. When a Borg cube allies with Voyager they speak of trillions of Borg killed in the attack.
The Borg negotiator was Seven of Nine who is freed from the Borg at the end of the episode.
One of my favourite episodes !!!
So how does a solution with Linux + Microwindows + FLTK compare to either a X based solution or embedded QT?
Anyone with facts or even figures?
Thanks, Chris
Hi,
now to put it all together, a GUI for a Linux PDA needs some kind of graphics output, a window manager and a toolkit. The solutions can be distinguished on whether they are based on the Linux framebuffer or on some kind of X-server. Thus, The following options for Linux GUIs are available:
1. based on framebuffer (without X -- but all these options contain window manager and toolkit)
- embedded QT
- PocketLinux (JavaGUI)
- www.microwindows.org
Personal Comment: Java brings my desktop machine to its knees (Pentium 133, 81MB) so it is probably not suitable for PDAs. Embedded QT is the most advanced solution, further advantage easy "porting" of KDE apps (binary compatible!). Could please s.o. comment on microwindows (which also sounds interesting)?
2. based on X
X-server: TinyX or full-blown X
window manager: twm (www.handhelds.org), pdawm, swm, aewm (see message #79)
toolkit: GTK (henzai.com), FLTK (www.fltk.org or agendacomputing.com)
Comment: I did not quite get the distinction between TinyX and X. At first, a solution with X-server seems to be bloated with a lot of features one might not need. However, message #79 from handhelds.org sounds very promising.
Did I forget something or did I get s.th. wrong?
What is the right way to do? With or without X? How does a solution with X compare to embedded/QT? And what about microwindows?