> On Nov 13, 7:11�am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Nov., 08:11, ad...@ng2000.com wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ng2000.com/blog/2008/11/04/digital-signal-processing/
>
> > Too late, in my opinion. The clock-rate increase in the SHARC family
> > has been much too slow (100MHz in 1996, 450MHz in 2008) to make SHARCs
> > a serious contender for large- and medium-scale signal processing
> > hardwares. For small-scale applications, BLACKFINs or similar are
> > better suited.
>
> Agreed. Despite how much love I have in Sharc, we have decided to use
> TI's c674x and OMAP L1x for our next line of products, and probably
> for all future development. SHARC is way more expensive, only has a
> tiny cache and has no dual core in the roadmap.
Well the SHARC has been kinda of "dual core" since the SIMD generation
(as of 1996 with the 21161N). I think there was a quad-SHARC processor
sometime (pre 1996), but ADI decided to stay with single cores
equipped with high-speed link connections. However, this is just not
comparable in performance (design time, programming time, debuggin
time and computation power) with multi-core processors, so I agree
with you. The Cell processor shows the way for heavy-duty signal
processing.
Regards,
Andor