| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Wistron Shows Montavista Phone (PC Magazine)Wistron Shows Montavista Phone (PC Magazine)Posted Jan 8, 2008 12:12 UTC (Tue) by jonth (subscriber, #4008)In reply to: Wistron Shows Montavista Phone (PC Magazine) by dlang Parent article: Wistron Shows Google Android Phone (PC Magazine)
Also, embedded device speed increase is more like 10x faster than that old 266Mhz PDA. I work on a (commercially available) 3.5G cellular device which contains 2 cores running at 1GHz. As dlang implies, the embedded space tends to work to different requirements, so we are much more likely to trade speed for better power consumption. This stands to reason: the processes we use are basically the same as the desktop chips (we may run one process generation behind), but we just run the chips at a different operating point (lower voltage, so lower frequency).
(Log in to post comments)
Wistron Shows Montavista Phone (PC Magazine) Posted Jan 9, 2008 0:39 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] And, Moore's law speaks about the number of transistors: at a given price, it will double every 18 months. It says nothing about processor speeds.I think it was a historical accident that processor speeds grew that fast in 1970-2000. In fact, the current generation of processors runs slower than the last (in Intel's i386 offerings), or roughly at the same speed (everyone else). It does not seem to be practical to go beyond 3 GHz, and yet transistor densities are still increasing at the predicted rate. Also in the embedded space, which means that the new processors can do much more in the same space (and with the same power). Speed is not the only factor.
Wistron Shows Montavista Phone (PC Magazine) Posted Jan 11, 2008 9:14 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Intel's Core 2 Duo's run considerably faster than Pentium 4's, even with just one core - they have a similar clock speed but can get more work done per clock. Intel would not still be in business if its new processors were slower than the old ones, and in fact it is beating AMD at present.
|
|
||||||||||||