Adaptive Filter | ADPCM | ADSP | ADSP-2181 | Aliasing | AMR | Anti-Aliasing | ARMA | Autocorrelation | AutoCovariance | Beamforming | Bessel | Blackfin | Butterworth | C6713 | CCS | Chebyshev | CIC Filter | Circular Convolution | Code Composer Studio | Comb Filter | Compression | Convolution | Cross Correlation | DCT | Decimation | Deconvolution | Demodulation | DM642 | DSP Boards | DSP/BIOS | DTMF | Echo Cancellation | Equalization | Equalizer | ETSI | EZLITE (Ez-kit Lite) | FFT | FFTW | FIR Filter | Fixed Point | FSK | G.711 | G.723 | G.729 | Gaussian Noise | Goertzel | GPIO | Hilbert Transform | IFFT | IIR Filter | Interpolation | Invariance | JTAG | Kalman | Laplace Transform | Levinson | LPC | McBSP | MIPS | Modulation | MPEG | Multirate | Notch Filter | Nyquist | OFDM | Oversampling | Pink Noise | Pitch | PLL | Polyphase | QAM | QDMA | Quantization | Quantizer | Radar | Random Noise | Reed Solomon | Remez | Resampling | RTDX | Sampling | Sharc | TI C6711 | Undersampling | Viterbi | Wavelets | White Noise | Wiener Filter | Windowing | XDS510PP | Z Transform

which is cheaper (cost involved in both fabrication and testing)

a single board with 9 DSP's or 3 boards with 3 DSP's each with proper
sockets to communicate.

amar

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.

amara vati wrote:

> which is cheaper (cost involved in both fabrication and testing)
> 
> a single board with 9 DSP's or 3 boards with 3 DSP's each with proper
> sockets to communicate.
> 
> amar

Is this a joke? Edging and handling three small boards clearly costs
more than one, even if the total board areas are equal. Test points from
which signals can be drawn for analysis cost less than interconnection
sockets and don't imply a reliability risk. Did you think it could be
otherwise? Did you think? (I'm grumpy this morning.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.

Jerry Avins wrote:

> amara vati wrote:
> 
>> which is cheaper (cost involved in both fabrication and testing)
>>
>> a single board with 9 DSP's or 3 boards with 3 DSP's each with proper
>> sockets to communicate.
>>
>> amar
> 
> 
> Is this a joke? Edging and handling three small boards clearly costs
> more than one, even if the total board areas are equal. Test points from
> which signals can be drawn for analysis cost less than interconnection
> sockets and don't imply a reliability risk. Did you think it could be
> otherwise? Did you think? (I'm grumpy this morning.)
> 
> Jerry

I would tend to say that original question was poorly defined.

As you point out, handling 3*M boards costs more than handling M boards.

But does that not implicitly assume a *ZERO* failure rate in QC?

Might not economies of scale also come into play? What if there was a 
market for 1000 9DSP boards and a market for 4000 3DSP boards?

The physical environment was also unspecified. What if this undefined 
application card assumed installation in a standard PC and BNC 
connectors were required? I can see 3 BNC's on a standard card. 9 
requires "gyrations".

All to say original question was poorly defined.

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.

Jerry Avins wrote:

> amara vati wrote:
> 
>> which is cheaper (cost involved in both fabrication and testing)
>>
>> a single board with 9 DSP's or 3 boards with 3 DSP's each with proper
>> sockets to communicate.
>>
>> amar
> 
> 
> Is this a joke? Edging and handling three small boards clearly costs
> more than one, even if the total board areas are equal. Test points from
> which signals can be drawn for analysis cost less than interconnection
> sockets and don't imply a reliability risk. Did you think it could be
> otherwise? Did you think? (I'm grumpy this morning.)
> 
> Jerry

Boy, you _are_.

I can see where the 3-identical-board idea may be more cost effective, 
particularly if the solution is low volume production or needs to be 
scalable, but the real answer depends on way too many variables to know.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.

Jerry Avins wrote:

(snip)

> Is this a joke? Edging and handling three small boards clearly costs
> more than one, even if the total board areas are equal. Test points from
> which signals can be drawn for analysis cost less than interconnection
> sockets and don't imply a reliability risk. Did you think it could be
> otherwise? Did you think? (I'm grumpy this morning.)

Price Pentium4 motherboards (I forget the socket number by now),
in single, double, and quad versions.   I am pretty sure that
the prices won't follow your rule.

That said, I have no idea how prices for DSP boards go.

-- glen

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> Is this a joke? Edging and handling three small boards clearly costs
>> more than one, even if the total board areas are equal. Test points from
>> which signals can be drawn for analysis cost less than interconnection
>> sockets and don't imply a reliability risk. Did you think it could be
>> otherwise? Did you think? (I'm grumpy this morning.)
> 
> 
> Price Pentium4 motherboards (I forget the socket number by now),
> in single, double, and quad versions.   I am pretty sure that
> the prices won't follow your rule.
> 
> That said, I have no idea how prices for DSP boards go.
> 
> -- glen

I wasn't thinking identical, but rather a matched heterogeneous set. My
gaffe highlights the worth of the good advice to say nothing when one
has nothing good to say. Following it is not only more polite, but
likely to avoid embarrassment. Amara, I apologize.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.

Hi, sorry I wasnt descriptive enough in posting my query. I am
actually talking about three perfectly identical boards. so as far as
testing in concerned, I would have to test only a single 3-DSP board.
Moreover, I am looking for scalablility. Like I would club as many
boards as the requirements dictate. but what about the mass production
costs. I feel that should also come down. thanks for your suggestions.

amar

Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<4095a85c$0$3044$6...@news.rcn.com>...
> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> 
> > Jerry Avins wrote:
> > 
> > (snip)
> > 
> >> Is this a joke? Edging and handling three small boards clearly costs
> >> more than one, even if the total board areas are equal. Test points from
> >> which signals can be drawn for analysis cost less than interconnection
> >> sockets and don't imply a reliability risk. Did you think it could be
> >> otherwise? Did you think? (I'm grumpy this morning.)
> > 
> > 
> > Price Pentium4 motherboards (I forget the socket number by now),
> > in single, double, and quad versions.   I am pretty sure that
> > the prices won't follow your rule.
> > 
> > That said, I have no idea how prices for DSP boards go.
> > 
> > -- glen
> 
> I wasn't thinking identical, but rather a matched heterogeneous set. My
> gaffe highlights the worth of the good advice to say nothing when one
> has nothing good to say. Following it is not only more polite, but
> likely to avoid embarrassment. Amara, I apologize.
> 
> Jerry

______________________________
New DSP Code Snippets Section now Live.   Learn more about the reward program for contributors here.