On Mar 6, 5:43 pm, Grant Griffin <nob...@example.com> wrote:
>
> I'm predicting that it'll be written in .net first.  D'ya think it's too
> late to buy stock in Microsoft? ;-)
>
I am sure you meant the Enterprise edition. There will be enough
managed classes to take care of your problem. (I have to restrain
myself from saying negative things about Micro$oft, the biggest "high-
tech" employer in our neighborhood. Thanks to them our real-estate
market is not doing too bad and Sonics may remain in Seattle).

On Mar 4, 8:40 am, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Its 0.6 to 2W for a relatively slow device. I don't see what makes that
> interesting against a dedicated DSP chip.

Isn't it faster than fastest floating point DSP given that it is
likely to support SSE3 etc. ? I think a device like this is more
suitable to play the dual role of system controller and signal
processor - Native Signal Processing (NSP)  for embedded
applications?

> The new OMAP emphasises a fast Cortex applications processor. The
> DaVinci emphasises the DSP power for things like video. I'm not sure I
> see too much common ground there.

Given the information that is publicly available, OMAP and DaVinci are
very different. For a programmer, the distinction will blur IF and
when both have Cortex + 64x+, use the same mechanism for DMA and
sharing on-chip resources (SCR). Time will tell ...

UglanceIcatch wrote:
...
> I haven't looked into this much. One of my colleagues' dream is that
> some day all real-time signal processing code will be written in
> Matlab. (Too bad, Mathworks is not a public company ;))

I'm predicting that it'll be written in .net first.  D'ya think it's too 
late to buy stock in Microsoft? ;-)

=g2
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin
Publisher of dspGuru                          http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation            http://www.iowegian.com
See http://www.iowegian.com/img/contact.gif for e-mail address

I know that I am digressing here w.r.t original posting.

> Its 0.6 to 2W for a relatively slow device. I don't see what makes that
> interesting against a dedicated DSP chip.

In some applications one could use something like Atom for handling
both control and signal processing functions.

> Medical imaging is
>         Ease of development sensitive
>         Not too power or cost sensitive
>         Not too space sensitive
> With the floating point capabilities of a current Pentium, basing all
> image processing on either FPGA solutions or Pentium/Athlon off the
> shelf boards makes perfect sense. I don't see things like base stations
> going that way any time soon.
>

I agree. However, if Analog Devices & TI stop improving (power, cost,
performance)  their floating point lines and we see Intel/AMD making
continuous improvements then we will begin to a see a shift in other
industries as well. It is somewhat disappointing that AD hasn't shown
us much since TigerSHARC.

>
> The new OMAP emphasises a fast Cortex applications processor. The
> DaVinci emphasises the DSP power for things like video. I'm not sure I
> see too much common ground there.
>

I think there will be flavors of OMAP AND DaVinci sporting both Cortex
and 64x+. Wouldn't it make sense if TI employs the similar SCR and
EDMA structures in both devices? So, the distinction will be mostly in
the set of peripheral ports and on-chip accelerators. Just a
speculation ...

>
> I wonder if that is the day when all innovation will cease in the world
> of signal processing? :-)
>

Code generators and compilers will rule the world!

UglanceIcatch wrote:
> Yes, it is. I read that its power consumption is in 0.6 to 2 watt

Its 0.6 to 2W for a relatively slow device. I don't see what makes that 
interesting against a dedicated DSP chip.

> range depending on the operating conditions. This may pose some threat
> to traditional floating point DSPs. I know that in Medical Imaging
> industry several big players have stopped using traditional DSPs for
> back-end processing.

Medical imaging is
	Ease of development sensitive
	Not too power or cost sensitive
	Not too space sensitive
With the floating point capabilities of a current Pentium, basing all 
image processing on either FPGA solutions or Pentium/Athlon off the 
shelf boards makes perfect sense. I don't see things like base stations 
going that way any time soon.

> Only TI seems to address broad market needs better than any other DSP
> vendor. They have been continuously improving their fixed point line
> bringing 64x+ core into several of their offerings. Their new OMAP
> application processor looks a lot like a DaVinci.

The new OMAP emphasises a fast Cortex applications processor. The 
DaVinci emphasises the DSP power for things like video. I'm not sure I 
see too much common ground there.

> I haven't looked into this much. One of my colleagues' dream is that
> some day all real-time signal processing code will be written in
> Matlab. (Too bad, Mathworks is not a public company ;))

I wonder if that is the day when all innovation will cease in the world 
of signal processing? :-)

Steve

Yes, it is. I read that its power consumption is in 0.6 to 2 watt
range depending on the operating conditions. This may pose some threat
to traditional floating point DSPs. I know that in Medical Imaging
industry several big players have stopped using traditional DSPs for
back-end processing.

Only TI seems to address broad market needs better than any other DSP
vendor. They have been continuously improving their fixed point line
bringing 64x+ core into several of their offerings. Their new OMAP
application processor looks a lot like a DaVinci.

I haven't looked into this much. One of my colleagues' dream is that
some day all real-time signal processing code will be written in
Matlab. (Too bad, Mathworks is not a public company ;))

On Mar 3, 6:40 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> UglanceIcatch wrote:
> > Intel Atom is beginning to look interesting.
>
> Isn't Atom the name for their new low power notebook chipset?
>
> > How are TI's floating point DSPs compared to TigerSHARC? My experience
> > with ADI DSPs is somewhat dated. I wish TI processors had those link
> > ports.
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:12 pm, "jjlind...@hotmail.com" <jjlind...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Hello, has anyone heard what will be the next DSP to surpass the Tiger
> >> Sharc from ADI?
>
> Steve

UglanceIcatch wrote:
> Intel Atom is beginning to look interesting.

Isn't Atom the name for their new low power notebook chipset?

> How are TI's floating point DSPs compared to TigerSHARC? My experience
> with ADI DSPs is somewhat dated. I wish TI processors had those link
> ports.
> 
> On Feb 28, 1:12 pm, "jjlind...@hotmail.com" <jjlind...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hello, has anyone heard what will be the next DSP to surpass the Tiger
>> Sharc from ADI?


Steve

Intel Atom is beginning to look interesting.

How are TI's floating point DSPs compared to TigerSHARC? My experience
with ADI DSPs is somewhat dated. I wish TI processors had those link
ports.

On Feb 28, 1:12 pm, "jjlind...@hotmail.com" <jjlind...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello, has anyone heard what will be the next DSP to surpass the Tiger
> Sharc from ADI?
>
> Thanks,
> joe

"Al Clark" <aclark@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message

> We have a new Blackfin and Sharc flash programmer that I wanted to call
> "remora" I thought this was a lot better name than "suckerfish"
>
> Alas, Bittware beat us to it with an FPGA mezzanine card for their
> TigerSharc boards.
>
> --- How's that for shameless commerce

Actually that was a re-use of the name.  The first BittWare Remora product 
was an add-on memory module for SHARCs, but since it was already obsolete 
and it was such a great name, we re-used it for the FPGA module.  We also 
had another old add-on memory module called Chum.

I'm not sure I'd call it shameless (2 drink minimum not required), but the 
SHARC brand made naming our products easy, as they were all types of sharks. 
Snaggletooth, Blacktip, Whitetip, and Hammerhead were popular, while others, 
like Megamouth and Goblin never saw the light of day.  A naming battle I 
lost was calling an 8 channel audio I/O (analog and digital) module Octapus. 
And I really wished the plural form was OctapAES, as it supported it.

I had not heard about the dual ability of the Blackfin being thought about 
in terms of its name - perhaps, but we just figured they wanted to draw on 
the SHARC's popularity, even though it is not a SHARC.

-----------
Ron Huizen
BittWare 

Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> wrote in
news:fqaco0$fbr$1@nnews.pacific.net.hk: 

> Al Clark wrote:
>>>>> just joking..i will be find out and let u know..
>>>>>
>>>>> could be bluewhale or dolphin processors
>>>>>
>>>>> just a joke..plz dont take it serious
>>>>>
>>>> Aren't those a bit mammalian for an ADI DSP name?
>>>>
>>>> The Blackfin is a kind of catfish. Maybe they should choose a kind
>>>> of dogfish next.
>> 
>> There is a Blackfin Shark (as well as Tuna).
>> 
>> So I don't think ADI was thinking catfish.....
> 
> Gee, you're supposed to be the ADI saleman around here. Even Wikipedia
> can help you here. :-)

We have a new Blackfin and Sharc flash programmer that I wanted to call
"remora" I thought this was a lot better name than "suckerfish" 

Alas, Bittware beat us to it with an FPGA mezzanine card for their
TigerSharc boards. 

--- How's that for shameless commerce


> 
> Catfish and dogfish are actually sharks. Catfish are mostly
> freshwater. The blackfin shark is one of the few catfish which can
> tolerate brackish water.

Being from Minnesota, I have caught both catfish and dogfish. I never
heard either was some kind of shark. I'm not even sure what we call a
dogfish (bowfin) is the same fish that you're referring to. 

Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing
"ADI board designer, manufacturer and salesman"

Steve Underwood wrote:
> Al Clark wrote:
>>>>> just joking..i will be find out and let u know..
>>>>>
>>>>> could be bluewhale or dolphin processors
>>>>>
>>>>> just a joke..plz dont take it serious
>>>>>
>>>> Aren't those a bit mammalian for an ADI DSP name?
>>>>
>>>> The Blackfin is a kind of catfish. Maybe they should choose a kind 
>>>> of dogfish next.
>>
>> There is a Blackfin Shark (as well as Tuna).
>>
>> So I don't think ADI was thinking catfish.....
> 
> Gee, you're supposed to be the ADI saleman around here. Even Wikipedia 
> can help you here. :-)
> 
> Catfish and dogfish are actually sharks. Catfish are mostly freshwater. 
> The blackfin shark is one of the few catfish which can tolerate brackish 
> water.

I guess the significance of that might need pointing out to those who 
have not encountered the ADI Blackfin.

The Blackfin core was designed to be a pretty good general purpose MCU 
core and a pretty good DSP core at the same time. Its the first 
substantially successful attempt at achieving that. I've never seen a 
statement that this was the basis of the name choice, but I assume a 
shark that can stand both fresh and salt water seemed appropriate.

Steve