Hi,
I am a engineer and have done much work on DSPs.
Compared to x86 processor, DSP has low power consumption
and is a SOC, so it is a ideal choice for portable equipments.
Before I have worked on a board which contains a lot of DSPs,
or DPS farm for video processing. Now another company uses
x86 processors for the same task. I begin to think why we
choose the DSP design. Now x86 processors are becoming
more and more powerful with more cores and extensive
instructions, maybe cheaper. I know the DSP design uses
less power, but in the applications that the power consumption
is not the top priority, can x86 processors replace DSPs?
Best Regards
Jogging
the performance of x86 processor and DSP
Started by ●August 6, 2009
Reply by ●August 6, 20092009-08-06
jogging wrote:> Hi, > I am a engineer and have done much work on DSPs. > Compared to x86 processor, DSP has low power consumption > and is a SOC, so it is a ideal choice for portable equipments. > Before I have worked on a board which contains a lot of DSPs, > or DPS farm for video processing. Now another company uses > x86 processors for the same task. I begin to think why we > choose the DSP design. Now x86 processors are becoming > more and more powerful with more cores and extensive > instructions, maybe cheaper. I know the DSP design uses > less power, but in the applications that the power consumption > is not the top priority, can x86 processors replace DSPs?Clearly, the application matters. If the shoe fits, forward march! Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●August 6, 20092009-08-06
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:56:56 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:> jogging wrote: >> Hi, >> I am a engineer and have done much work on DSPs. >> Compared to x86 processor, DSP has low power consumption and is a SOC, >> so it is a ideal choice for portable equipments. Before I have worked >> on a board which contains a lot of DSPs, or DPS farm for video >> processing. Now another company uses x86 processors for the same task. >> I begin to think why we choose the DSP design. Now x86 processors are >> becoming more and more powerful with more cores and extensive >> instructions, maybe cheaper. I know the DSP design uses less power, but >> in the applications that the power consumption is not the top priority, >> can x86 processors replace DSPs? > > Clearly, the application matters. If the shoe fits, forward march! > > JerryBut don't just shelve your DSP-specific skills; power matters even in server farms. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●August 6, 20092009-08-06
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:35:40 -0700 (PDT), jogging <joggingsong@gmail.com> wrote:>can x86 processors replace DSPs?I've done DSP in fixed point DSPs. I've done DSP in floating point DSPs. I've done DSP in FPGAs. I've done DSP in ASICs. I've done DSP in CPUs without FPUs. I've done DSP in CPUs with FPUs. And I've done DSP in x86 processors with FPUs and SIMD instruction sets. Doing DSP in x86 processors is an INCREDIBLE luxury. It allows one to implement "cool" stuff, instead of spending all one's time coming up with workarounds for divides and transcendental functions or optimizing single instructions out of loops. Greg
Reply by ●August 6, 20092009-08-06
jogging wrote:> Hi, > I am a engineer and have done much work on DSPs.You are the coder of the beginner level, to be precise.> Compared to x86 processor, DSP has low power consumption > and is a SOC, so it is a ideal choice for portable equipments. > Before I have worked on a board which contains a lot of DSPs, > or DPS farm for video processing. Now another company uses > x86 processors for the same task. I begin to think why we > choose the DSP design. Now x86 processors are becoming > more and more powerful with more cores and extensive > instructions, maybe cheaper. I know the DSP design uses > less power, but in the applications that the power consumption > is not the top priority, can x86 processors replace DSPs?This stupid question comes to anybody's mind at one point of time. The answer is "it depends". VLV
Reply by ●August 6, 20092009-08-06
Greg Berchin wrote:> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:35:40 -0700 (PDT), jogging > <joggingsong@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>can x86 processors replace DSPs? > > Doing DSP in x86 processors is an INCREDIBLE luxury. It allows one to > implement "cool" stuff, instead of spending all one's time coming up > with workarounds for divides and transcendental functions or > optimizing single instructions out of loops.In exchange for that, you have the OS and the driver issues. VLV
Reply by ●August 6, 20092009-08-06
>On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:35:40 -0700 (PDT), jogging ><joggingsong@gmail.com> wrote: > >>can x86 processors replace DSPs? > >I've done DSP in fixed point DSPs. I've done DSP in floating point >DSPs. I've done DSP in FPGAs. I've done DSP in ASICs. I've done DSP >in CPUs without FPUs. I've done DSP in CPUs with FPUs. And I've done >DSP in x86 processors with FPUs and SIMD instruction sets.Yeah, we all have sorry tales to tell about our lives. :-)> >Doing DSP in x86 processors is an INCREDIBLE luxury. It allows one to >implement "cool" stuff, instead of spending all one's time coming up >with workarounds for divides and transcendental functions or >optimizing single instructions out of loops.Its a luxury environment for experimenting with algorithms, exercising your design with test data, etc. However, when your code hits the real time environment its being built for, the x86 can be a total PITA. Its not just the timing effects of the OS. The massive dependency on cache for any kind of decent performance can lead to some wacky results too. When you are developing control loops, and latency is a really big issue, can you usually just give up and move on. So, the x86 world is good for DSP, but its not without huge pitfalls. Steve
Reply by ●August 7, 20092009-08-07
On Aug 6, 11:56�pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> jogging wrote: > > Hi, > > � � �I am a engineer and have done much work on DSPs. > > Compared to x86 processor, DSP has low power consumption > > and is a SOC, so it is a ideal choice for portable equipments. > > Before I have worked on a board which contains a lot of DSPs, > > or DPS farm for video processing. Now another company uses > > x86 processors for the same task. I begin to think why we > > choose the DSP design. Now x86 processors are becoming > > more and more powerful with more cores and extensive > > instructions, maybe cheaper. I know the DSP design uses > > less power, but in the applications that the power consumption > > is not the top priority, can x86 processors replace DSPs? > > Clearly, the application matters. If the shoe fits, forward march! > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > �����������������������������������������������������������������������Maybe I am not a very senior engineer. Most of my work is on DSPs, so I am not familiar with other computing platform such as x86 and FPGA. What factors do one need to consider when selecting a processor for a project? Is cost of a processor very important? For a product price the price of BOM is a small piece of selling price. Maybe it's the matter that product manager need to consider, not an engineer. Best Regards Jogging
Reply by ●August 7, 20092009-08-07
On Aug 7, 9:11�am, "steveu" <ste...@coppice.org> wrote:> >On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:35:40 -0700 (PDT), jogging > ><joggings...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>can x86 processors replace DSPs? > > >I've done DSP in fixed point DSPs. �I've done DSP in floating point > >DSPs. �I've done DSP in FPGAs. �I've done DSP in ASICs. �I've done DSP > >in CPUs without FPUs. �I've done DSP in CPUs with FPUs. �And I've done > >DSP in x86 processors with FPUs and SIMD instruction sets. > > Yeah, we all have sorry tales to tell about our lives. :-) > > > > >Doing DSP in x86 processors is an INCREDIBLE luxury. �It allows one to > >implement "cool" stuff, instead of spending all one's time coming up > >with workarounds for divides and transcendental functions or > >optimizing single instructions out of loops. > > Its a luxury environment for experimenting with algorithms, exercising > your design with test data, etc. However, when your code hits the real time > environment its being built for, the x86 can be a total PITA. Its not just > the timing effects of the OS. The massive dependency on cache for any kind > of decent performance can lead to some wacky results too. When you are > developing control loops, and latency is a really big issue, can you > usually just give up and move on. > > So, the x86 world is good for DSP, but its not without huge pitfalls. > > SteveExcept control application, most applications are only soft real time. Nowadays DSPs have cache too, and it is very important as far as performance concerned. Best Regards Jogging
Reply by ●August 7, 20092009-08-07
On Aug 7, 6:15�am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:> jogging wrote: > > Hi, > > � � �I am a engineer and have done much work on DSPs. > > You are the coder of the beginner level, to be precise. > > > Compared to x86 processor, DSP has low power consumption > > and is a SOC, so it is a ideal choice for portable equipments. > > Before I have worked on a board which contains a lot of DSPs, > > or DPS farm for video processing. Now another company uses > > x86 processors for the same task. I begin to think why we > > choose the DSP design. Now x86 processors are becoming > > more and more powerful with more cores and extensive > > instructions, maybe cheaper. I know the DSP design uses > > less power, but in the applications that the power consumption > > is not the top priority, can x86 processors replace DSPs? > > This stupid question comes to anybody's mind at one point of time. The > answer is "it depends". > > VLVHi, Vladimir Can you share your experience when you encountered this stupid question? I think it is not possible for an engineer to learn every computing platform. But you are not familiar with every computing platform, how can you make a better choice? Best Regards Jogging
