Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16579 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-10-22 08:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-10-23 10:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 08:53 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-22 11:21 -0500
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 09:56 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 12:10 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 12:55 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-10-22 22:02 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 16:50 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 21:52 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 22:03 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-23 03:19 -0500
Re: RTX2000 optimization vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-23 17:54 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-24 08:16 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:19 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-24 06:56 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-24 12:26 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:25 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:30 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 22:10 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 16:43 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 17:55 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:44 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-27 02:17 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 23:01 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-27 22:18 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 19:19 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-28 04:21 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 14:36 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-29 19:06 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-30 02:07 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-30 09:36 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-30 08:09 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-30 19:14 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-30 18:50 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 07:37 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-31 15:27 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 08:59 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-31 11:18 -0500
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 13:49 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 13:43 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-31 12:03 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 09:05 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 09:06 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 09:25 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] danw8804@gmail.com - 2012-10-31 09:38 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 14:30 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 14:27 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 12:01 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 16:31 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-31 20:33 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 14:05 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 11:23 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 14:31 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-02 22:11 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 12:50 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 10:42 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 13:59 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 12:10 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 15:42 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 15:56 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 20:53 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-04 11:10 +0000
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-04 22:58 -0800
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-05 15:29 +0100
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-05 14:40 +0000
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 11:36 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-05 09:02 -0800
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 15:22 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-05 12:56 -0800
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 12:22 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-06 09:29 -0800
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 12:53 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-06 10:00 -0800
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-06 08:04 -1000
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 13:37 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-05 21:06 +0100
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-05 15:29 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-06 16:28 +0100
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-06 12:50 -0500
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-07 20:29 -0800
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-04 10:40 +0000
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-01 21:26 +0100
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-02 04:03 -0400
Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2012-11-04 17:17 -0600
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-02 12:48 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-02 10:25 -1000
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-02 19:54 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-03 17:47 +0100
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-03 14:05 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-05 11:55 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-03 19:20 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-04 16:08 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-04 17:14 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-04 18:40 +0100
Re: RTX2000 optimization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-04 09:36 -0600
Re: RTX2000 optimization Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-11-04 23:49 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 12:11 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-31 20:08 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 10:59 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 12:14 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-02 10:51 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-02 11:28 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-01 14:58 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-28 14:45 +0100
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 15:04 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-28 21:09 +0100
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 16:59 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-28 07:59 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 15:06 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 16:35 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-23 12:44 +0000
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:32 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 13:54 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 14:14 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 14:26 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 16:00 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 21:51 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:36 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-24 08:47 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-24 06:36 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:33 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-25 04:54 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 17:35 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 15:27 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:10 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 18:34 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:03 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 19:56 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 18:34 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 22:27 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:27 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:17 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 19:44 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 19:59 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:42 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:55 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-10-25 04:49 -0700
addressable stack, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-05 14:04 -0500
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 15:44 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-25 00:50 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 18:58 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 16:07 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:20 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-26 20:57 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 15:43 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-28 05:01 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-28 15:23 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-29 19:32 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-30 19:00 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-31 01:23 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-31 14:56 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-22 19:44 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 17:47 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-23 16:00 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-23 21:07 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-23 18:44 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 16:03 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 13:15 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 16:25 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 03:15 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 09:55 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 10:04 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 12:00 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 23:24 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 09:26 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-25 10:39 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 19:35 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-26 18:26 +0200
Re: RTX2000 optimization rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 16:10 -0400
Re: RTX2000 optimization Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-24 13:21 -0700
Re: RTX2000 optimization stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-23 10:52 +0000
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 09:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <1c2b8ff6-b8dc-48cc-9433-035ea0647c65@i8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16872 |
On Oct 31, 3:59 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "daveyrotten" <danw8...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3289bb1a-2b62-4b5e-b32f-55887176d7b9@googlegroups.com... > ... > > > With a $55 Xula-200 board, a flash memory Pmod board, keyboard, > > and VGA monitor you can make a complete Forth computer in > > which you have control of everything. > > Is that a good buy? E.g., You can get all this for $39.99 USD: > > 512Mb Raspberry-Pi with 700Mhz ARM cpu, MPEG-2 and OpenGL GPU, and 10/100 > Ethernethttp://blog.makezine.com/2012/10/29/maker-shed-now-shipping-512mb-ras... > > Specifications and purchasing:http://www.makershed.com/Raspberry_Pi_Model_B_Revision_2_512MB_p/mkrp... > > Rod Pemberton Apples and oranges. The PI is mass produced. The Xula will be made in smaller quantities so will have a higher unit cost. Also, you can put your own processor, that *you* made on the Xula. That's the point of the board!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 09:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <ec3f886a-0d36-4220-a67d-dfc36d02c371@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16872 |
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:59:40 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "daveyrotten" wrote in message > > news:3289bb1a-2b62-4b5e-b32f-55887176d7b9@googlegroups.com... > > ... > > > > > With a $55 Xula-200 board, a flash memory Pmod board, keyboard, > > > and VGA monitor you can make a complete Forth computer in > > > which you have control of everything. > > > > Is that a good buy? E.g., You can get all this for $39.99 USD: > > > > 512Mb Raspberry-Pi with 700Mhz ARM cpu, MPEG-2 and OpenGL GPU, and 10/100 > > Ethernet > > http://blog.makezine.com/2012/10/29/maker-shed-now-shipping-512mb-raspberry-pis > > > > Specifications and purchasing: > > http://www.makershed.com/Raspberry_Pi_Model_B_Revision_2_512MB_p/mkrpi2.htm > > > > > > Rod Pemberton Yes, the FPGA approach will always cost a little more than the off-the-shelf- microprocessor approach. You're paying more for the extra flexibility. I can't change the ARM but I can change the b16 to a b20, for example (and at no extra cost).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7x390ulich.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16875 |
daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> writes: > Yes, the FPGA approach will always cost a little more than the > off-the-shelf- microprocessor approach. You're paying more for the > extra flexibility. I can't change the ARM but I can change the b16 to > a b20, for example (and at no extra cost). One thing bothering me is there don't seem to be any FOSS synthesis tools for (e.g.) Verilog, and indeed the bit stream formats for many FPGA's are secret.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | danw8804@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 09:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <d0ed83e4-be76-4ef5-a785-82238e27ea92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16879 |
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:25:03 AM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > daveyrotten writes: > > > Yes, the FPGA approach will always cost a little more than the > > > off-the-shelf- microprocessor approach. You're paying more for the > > > extra flexibility. I can't change the ARM but I can change the b16 to > > > a b20, for example (and at no extra cost). > > > > One thing bothering me is there don't seem to be any FOSS synthesis > > tools for (e.g.) Verilog, and indeed the bit stream formats for many > > FPGA's are secret. I'm most familiar with Xilinx. They offer a free (Webpack) version of their ISE tools. As far as I can tell it is a full featured version except that it will not route the bigger parts in each FPGA family. That has not been a problem so far as it still leaves many very capable parts to choose from. But you're right they are not open source and I'm not aware of any that are. We do have to hope that they continue to offer free versions. Historically, they have been more interested in selling parts than selling software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 14:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k6rqnm$qh9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16881 |
On 10/31/2012 12:38 PM, danw8804@gmail.com wrote: > > Historically, they have been more interested in selling parts than selling software. Yes, and I don't see any reason for that to change because that is what people are willing to pay for. It was a fair number of years ago that a Xilinx rep told me they had more software engineers than hardware. That's pretty amazing if you think about it. A software company making their money selling hardware. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 14:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k6rqio$qh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16879 |
On 10/31/2012 12:25 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > daveyrotten<danw8804@gmail.com> writes: >> Yes, the FPGA approach will always cost a little more than the >> off-the-shelf- microprocessor approach. You're paying more for the >> extra flexibility. I can't change the ARM but I can change the b16 to >> a b20, for example (and at no extra cost). > > One thing bothering me is there don't seem to be any FOSS synthesis > tools for (e.g.) Verilog, and indeed the bit stream formats for many > FPGA's are secret. Yup! There are FOSS synthesis tools, but you mean the place and route tools which are all proprietary. That is not likely to change, so get used to it if you work with FPGAs. There are plenty of "free beer" tools. You can use whatever synthesis tool you want and then use the vendor's "free beer" place and route tools. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 12:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7xehkeea8s.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16889 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > Yup! There are FOSS synthesis tools, but you mean the place and route > tools which are all proprietary. Could you explain the difference? I had thought synthesis meant the whole shebang, but this stuff is outside my area. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 16:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k6s1r6$cdh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16892 |
On 10/31/2012 3:01 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> Yup! There are FOSS synthesis tools, but you mean the place and route >> tools which are all proprietary. > > Could you explain the difference? I had thought synthesis meant the > whole shebang, but this stuff is outside my area. Thanks. Assuming we *both* understand software compilation (I'm the one at doubt here...), the analogy is compilation to assembly code is like synthesis. Place and route is more like linking. All the real hard core knowledge of the details of the chips is in place and route. The synthesis tools only need to know what components are available such as FFs, LUTs (how many inputs) and special functions like multipliers and shift registers... Place and route needs to know all the dirty secrets of routing and more importantly, how to generate a bit stream that the chip understands and can load into the device. The bitstream is the secret stuff! Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-31 20:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7x1ugegfoi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16897 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > Place and route is more like linking... [it] needs to know all the dirty > secrets of routing and more importantly, how to generate a bit stream > that the chip understands and can load into the device. The bitstream > is the secret stuff! Thanks. I'd had the impression that the bit stream formats per se weren't that hard to reverse engineer, and that converting relatively high level (Verilog) code into combinatorial circuits was the hard part. I guess that is mostly about utilizing the routing mesh on the FPGA, which would be in the place and route tool. I wonder what the situation is with custom silicon, where you just have to make rectangle layout. There's not any secret formats in that instance, but there's still not any FOSS tools as far as I know. There are are lower level FOSS tools like layout editors but nothing to drop Verilog code in and get a layout AFAIK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-01 14:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k6udm9$19t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16927 |
On 10/31/2012 11:33 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> Place and route is more like linking... [it] needs to know all the dirty >> secrets of routing and more importantly, how to generate a bit stream >> that the chip understands and can load into the device. The bitstream >> is the secret stuff! > > Thanks. I'd had the impression that the bit stream formats per se > weren't that hard to reverse engineer, and that converting relatively > high level (Verilog) code into combinatorial circuits was the hard part. > I guess that is mostly about utilizing the routing mesh on the FPGA, > which would be in the place and route tool. I wonder what the situation > is with custom silicon, where you just have to make rectangle layout. > There's not any secret formats in that instance, but there's still not > any FOSS tools as far as I know. There are are lower level FOSS tools > like layout editors but nothing to drop Verilog code in and get a > layout AFAIK. Please don't get me wrong. The synthesis is not easy. I expect the commercial tools work much better than the FOSS tools. At one point Xilinx bought a synthesis tool which they used in their "free" tools, XST. It was pretty bad but gradually improved over the years and is the mainstream tool now. Of course the vendors will tell you their tool is better, and I'm sure it is, but how much better? The bitstream is hard to reverse engineer, but I believe there have been stabs at that. Trouble is the non-FOSS licenses forbid reverse engineering, duh, that's why people don't like them! Yes, with chip development the tools are mostly commercial. I think there is one tool that is FOSS, but this isn't my domain. I do know that building custom chips is a bit more than drawing rectangles. That's like when my assembly house thinks as an engineer, I do board layout! Lol, the layout is the part I do for relaxation! The Verilog/VHDL tool would be the same for custom chips. It only produces a netlist of gates/FFs. This has to be turned into a chip design by again doing place and route with a library for the process you are using. Then there is the way Chuck does it. You can literally draw your own rectangles and specify all the process details for a fab house. But you had better know your stuff when it comes to the semiconductor physics. Chuck learned it all by trial and error I expect. He has been designing chips for some 10+ years. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-01 11:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7xlielw5a9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16950 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > Please don't get me wrong. The synthesis is not easy. ... Thanks. I just came across this, by a guy who made his own FPGA from 7400-series parts: http://blog.notdot.net/2012/10/Build-your-own-FPGA It demystified FPGA's a lot for me and I think I have sort of a clue now about how the tools might work. > Then there is the way Chuck does it. You can literally draw your own > rectangles and specify all the process details for a fab house. But > you had better know your stuff when it comes to the semiconductor > physics. Chuck learned it all by trial and error I expect. He has > been designing chips for some 10+ years. I think it's maybe not that bad, unless like Chuck you're really trying to get press the process to its limits of performance. At least in the old days it was otherwise just a matter of crossing a red wire with a green wire to get a switch, plus following a few geometric design rules that are part of the process specs, plus modelling the layout as an RC network to compute timings. What I want to know is what it takes to get from Verilog to rectangles, and how much more complicated the other stuff is than it used to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-01 14:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k6uf5c$b41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16951 |
On 11/1/2012 2:23 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> Please don't get me wrong. The synthesis is not easy. ... > > Thanks. I just came across this, by a guy who made his own FPGA from > 7400-series parts: > > http://blog.notdot.net/2012/10/Build-your-own-FPGA > > It demystified FPGA's a lot for me and I think I have sort of a clue now > about how the tools might work. > >> Then there is the way Chuck does it. You can literally draw your own >> rectangles and specify all the process details for a fab house. But >> you had better know your stuff when it comes to the semiconductor >> physics. Chuck learned it all by trial and error I expect. He has >> been designing chips for some 10+ years. > > I think it's maybe not that bad, unless like Chuck you're really trying > to get press the process to its limits of performance. At least in the > old days it was otherwise just a matter of crossing a red wire with a > green wire to get a switch, plus following a few geometric design rules > that are part of the process specs, plus modelling the layout as an RC > network to compute timings. What I want to know is what it takes to get > from Verilog to rectangles, and how much more complicated the other > stuff is than it used to be. If you use one of the FOSS tools to compile your Verilog to gates, the translation is just a library even if you make your own. I don't know what it takes to do the placement and routing. I know that is very hard to do well, much less optimally. That is something they used to do manually, many, many years ago, like when they designed the Z80 and I think the follow on Z8???. The designer swore that he'd never do another manual layout after that one. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-02 22:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7xip9ne0dm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16952 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > If you use one of the FOSS tools to compile your Verilog to gates, the > translation is just a library even if you make your own. I don't know > what it takes to do the placement and routing. It could also be that there are commonly used circuits like adders, that have been implemented much more optimally as carefully tuned macro cells and special clever topology, than an automatic place and route tool could hope to do with raw gates starting from the logic equations defining addition. So a competitive synthesis tool would have to be backed by a library of these cells, and know how to use them. At my interest level, I can't really contemplate trying to beat Intel at super high performance server cpu's, and I don't care very much about making some tiny embedded core 0.01 cents cheaper than the other guy's, but I could imagine wanting to use low-NRE trailing-edge ASIC's to do things that are out of reach of software or FPGA's. So maybe some performance loss from using FOSS tools are acceptable in this middle regime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 12:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k73i0a$kh0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17008 |
On 11/3/2012 1:11 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> If you use one of the FOSS tools to compile your Verilog to gates, the >> translation is just a library even if you make your own. I don't know >> what it takes to do the placement and routing. > > It could also be that there are commonly used circuits like adders, that > have been implemented much more optimally as carefully tuned macro cells > and special clever topology, than an automatic place and route tool > could hope to do with raw gates starting from the logic equations > defining addition. So a competitive synthesis tool would have to be > backed by a library of these cells, and know how to use them. > > At my interest level, I can't really contemplate trying to beat Intel at > super high performance server cpu's, and I don't care very much about > making some tiny embedded core 0.01 cents cheaper than the other guy's, > but I could imagine wanting to use low-NRE trailing-edge ASIC's to do > things that are out of reach of software or FPGA's. So maybe some > performance loss from using FOSS tools are acceptable in this middle > regime. I'm not suggesting that using FOSS tools would be suboptimal. I don't really know much about it. If you ever want to do a chip design and would be interested in a cooperative effort, please contact me. As much as I might sometimes seem a bit off in these groups, I can be very easy to work with and could have a lot to contribute. Much of what is used to design FPGAs will transfer to ASICs. I would be interested in designing a chip, but I don't have any ideas that would appropriate for a custom chip design. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 10:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7x625mtwfw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17012 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > I'm not suggesting that using FOSS tools would be suboptimal. I don't > really know much about it. If you ever want to do a chip design and > would be interested in a cooperative effort, please contact me. Hee hee, sure, no problem, you're in charge of raising the development and fab funds. I.e. we are both in about the same boat. > I would be interested in designing a chip, but I don't have any ideas > that would appropriate for a custom chip design. Oh, ideas are a dime a dozen, don't worry, there's no shortage. All that's needed to make them real is a boat load of cash ;-).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 13:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k73m1d$dn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17015 |
On 11/3/2012 1:42 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> I'm not suggesting that using FOSS tools would be suboptimal. I don't >> really know much about it. If you ever want to do a chip design and >> would be interested in a cooperative effort, please contact me. > > Hee hee, sure, no problem, you're in charge of raising the development > and fab funds. I.e. we are both in about the same boat. > >> I would be interested in designing a chip, but I don't have any ideas >> that would appropriate for a custom chip design. > > Oh, ideas are a dime a dozen, don't worry, there's no shortage. All > that's needed to make them real is a boat load of cash ;-). I saw someone post that a run of obsolescent technology chips can be done as cheaply as $2000 or what it euros? I can come up with that. What ideas do you have? Anything that might make a profit? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 12:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7x1ugatsdb.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17016 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> I saw someone post that a run of obsolescent technology chips can be
> done as cheaply as $2000 or what it euros? I can come up with that.
Yes, that was me: http://cmp.imag.fr/products/ic/?p=prices
> What ideas do you have? Anything that might make a profit?
For 2000 euro you get 25 parts (MOSIS-like multi-project run, I guess).
That's around $100 per chip, so it's suitable only for special one-off
projects or for prototyping. To turn a profit on a hardware product
will take higher quantity fab runs that cost a lot more (you or Bernd
would know the economics much better than me).
Some possible ideas:
* Berkeley PF style TCP packet filter that can keep up with 10 gbit
ethernet, or better yet 25 gbit (100 gbit ethernet is four bounded 25
gbit channels, I think). This would be an off-chip SERDES (or stage)
and a lot of parallel packet analysis engines that might even contain
tiny Forth cores. Application areas include DDOS mitigation, etc.
Put this on a PCI ethernet card and beat rack-mounted filtering gear
that costs tens of kilobucks.
* Bitcoin mining might have been profitable a year or two ago, probably
mined out by now. Lots of people were paying big bucks for FPGA-based
mining rigs and an even an old-tech ASIC would presumably have
outperformed them by large margins. To do this today I think you'd
need a more advanced process, since mining has gotten so much slower.
* Probably not economical: an Arduino-like development board with a
Forth CPU, based on the J1. Presumably the ASIC would be much faster
and cheaper (in enough quantity) than an FPGA, it could have 10's of
cores even with an old process, etc. Sort of a revival of the Novix.
* Auditable security processor: a microcontroller with some crypto
primitives, designed with a 100% FOSS toolchain down to the rectangle
layout, for audibility against insertion of any backdoors. You'd be
able to trace any wire on the chip from optical inspection (with a
microscope) back through the toolchain and know why it was there.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/05/backdoor_found.html
turned out to be partially bogus, but it is certainly an area of
concern, that this part would address.
I have a few more that I might try to write up later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 15:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k73s3v$mho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17019 |
On 11/3/2012 3:10 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> I saw someone post that a run of obsolescent technology chips can be >> done as cheaply as $2000 or what it euros? I can come up with that. > > Yes, that was me: http://cmp.imag.fr/products/ic/?p=prices > >> What ideas do you have? Anything that might make a profit? > > For 2000 euro you get 25 parts (MOSIS-like multi-project run, I guess). > That's around $100 per chip, so it's suitable only for special one-off > projects or for prototyping. To turn a profit on a hardware product > will take higher quantity fab runs that cost a lot more (you or Bernd > would know the economics much better than me). > > Some possible ideas: > > * Berkeley PF style TCP packet filter that can keep up with 10 gbit > ethernet, or better yet 25 gbit (100 gbit ethernet is four bounded 25 > gbit channels, I think). This would be an off-chip SERDES (or stage) > and a lot of parallel packet analysis engines that might even contain > tiny Forth cores. Application areas include DDOS mitigation, etc. > Put this on a PCI ethernet card and beat rack-mounted filtering gear > that costs tens of kilobucks. Is this something you are knowledgeable in? I'm not. But I think there is a lot of bucks required to do this, not just the chip, the board level design at 25 gbit/s is far from trivial. I expect there are lots of others looking at this so that as soon as there is enough profit vs. the development cost, it will get done by the big boys. No? > * Bitcoin mining might have been profitable a year or two ago, probably > mined out by now. Lots of people were paying big bucks for FPGA-based > mining rigs and an even an old-tech ASIC would presumably have > outperformed them by large margins. To do this today I think you'd > need a more advanced process, since mining has gotten so much slower. Why is mining slower now? Has the protocols gotten more complex for security? I looked at this superficially a while back and it looked very risky to me. Not only are there security issues, but the value of bitcoin relative to real money is subject to all the same things that influence a traded stock. In other words, it can tank overnight on bad news. > * Probably not economical: an Arduino-like development board with a > Forth CPU, based on the J1. Presumably the ASIC would be much faster > and cheaper (in enough quantity) than an FPGA, it could have 10's of > cores even with an old process, etc. Sort of a revival of the Novix. What exactly is the market? Just hobby? > * Auditable security processor: a microcontroller with some crypto > primitives, designed with a 100% FOSS toolchain down to the rectangle > layout, for audibility against insertion of any backdoors. You'd be > able to trace any wire on the chip from optical inspection (with a > microscope) back through the toolchain and know why it was there. > > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/05/backdoor_found.html > > turned out to be partially bogus, but it is certainly an area of > concern, that this part would address. How viable is this as a profitable product? I know the governmental market is controlled by NSA and it is unlikely to get approval if they didn't make it. I suppose there is commercial utility, but how to capitalize on that? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 15:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <7xlieixpmd.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17020 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> * Berkeley PF style TCP packet filter that can keep up with 10 gbit > Is this something you are knowledgeable in? I have some clue (not real expertise) about the software and network side, but basically no clue about the hardware side. Maybe the idea of doing it in a small 0.35u chip is wishful thinking. > But I think there is a lot of bucks required to do this, not just the > chip, the board level design at 25 gbit/s is far from trivial. 10 gbit would still be useful and might be easier. Basically you have an ethernet port which I think just goes straight into a commodity chip, right? If there's a way to split the 10 ghz input to (say) 64 channels at 150 mhz, hopefully the ASIC can cope with that. I think this is basically what a SERDES is. > I expect there are lots of others looking at this so that as soon as > there is enough profit vs. the development cost, it will get done by > the big boys. No? There are some very expensive products of this sort because the big boys are content to just sell to other big boys, and ignore smaller potential customers who could also use stuff like this (they are instead forced to buy filtered connections from providers with that expensive gear). So there is some potentially disruptive technology here. I think it might be doable with pure software on a dedicated Xeon server, but that's at least a kilobuck all by itself, plus very careful coding. >> * Bitcoin mining... has gotten so much slower. > Why is mining slower now? Basically the way mining works is you generate a random number and check (based on a cryptographic hash function) whether it has a certain property. If it does, you have mined a coin; if not, generate a new number and try again. The probability that a random number results in a coin is 1/N, where N is a ecosystem-wide parameter that keeps increasing as more coins are found, so mining (by design) gets harder and harder over time. Right now, as I understand it (my info may not be accurate), mining on a PC/GPU is a money-losing proposition because the crossover has been reached where the electricity to mine a new coin costs more than the coin is worth. I don't know if FPGA mining has reached that crossover yet. But I figure ASIC's can surely beat FPGA's. That said, I don't participate in Bitcoin myself and only pay limited attention to it because it has some technically cool aspects. I suspect that people who bought expensive FPGA mining rigs never turned a profit and were just in it to have the fastest rig on the block. The idea of making ASICs is to sell them to the people who build those systems, rather than to go into the mining business one's self. That lets you leave the infrastructure costs (boards and boxes to hold the chips) up to the miners and rig builders. >> Arduino-like development board... Sort of a revival of the Novix. > What exactly is the market? Just hobby? Shrug, dunno, some people on this newsgroup and elsewhere think there is a market for Forth chips. From Koopman's book I can see how there might be some application areas that aren't well-served by conventional chips. >> * Auditable security processor... 100% FOSS toolchain > How viable is this as a profitable product? I know the governmental > market is controlled by NSA and it is unlikely to get approval if they > didn't make it. I suppose there is commercial utility, but how to > capitalize on that? Hard to say. There is certainly a commercial market for security hardware (financial sector etc.) that is a relatively low-volume niche willing to pay high prices for specialized products. Combine that with relatively low development and NRE costs, and maybe there is a profit to be had. You are right that the NSA makes its own stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-03 20:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Xula-200 or Raspberry-Pi a better buy?, was [Re: RTX2000 optimization] |
| Message-ID | <k74eak$v9v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17021 |
On 11/3/2012 6:56 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>> * Berkeley PF style TCP packet filter that can keep up with 10 gbit >> Is this something you are knowledgeable in? > > I have some clue (not real expertise) about the software and network > side, but basically no clue about the hardware side. Maybe the idea > of doing it in a small 0.35u chip is wishful thinking. Unless you have some novel ideas I think yes, this is a bit unrealistic. The NRE may be high on more current technology, but even 90 nm would be a bit advantage over 350 nm and the costs would be worthwhile if there is any sort of a market I would think. I expect to find a viable product it would need to be a bit of a niche application and to compete in the market some expertise is needed that most others don't have. Or a customer with a specific need... with cash preferrably. >> But I think there is a lot of bucks required to do this, not just the >> chip, the board level design at 25 gbit/s is far from trivial. > > 10 gbit would still be useful and might be easier. Basically you > have an ethernet port which I think just goes straight into a commodity > chip, right? If there's a way to split the 10 ghz input to (say) 64 > channels at 150 mhz, hopefully the ASIC can cope with that. I think > this is basically what a SERDES is. Yes, you can even connect somewhere in excess of 2.5 Gbps directly to FPGAs. I'm not current on just how fast you can do this. Many of them have SERDES built in, just not sure how fast they go. >> I expect there are lots of others looking at this so that as soon as >> there is enough profit vs. the development cost, it will get done by >> the big boys. No? > > There are some very expensive products of this sort because the big boys > are content to just sell to other big boys, and ignore smaller potential > customers who could also use stuff like this (they are instead forced > to buy filtered connections from providers with that expensive gear). > So there is some potentially disruptive technology here. I think it > might be doable with pure software on a dedicated Xeon server, but > that's at least a kilobuck all by itself, plus very careful coding. > >>> * Bitcoin mining... has gotten so much slower. >> Why is mining slower now? > > Basically the way mining works is you generate a random number and check > (based on a cryptographic hash function) whether it has a certain > property. If it does, you have mined a coin; if not, generate a new > number and try again. The probability that a random number results in a > coin is 1/N, where N is a ecosystem-wide parameter that keeps increasing > as more coins are found, so mining (by design) gets harder and harder > over time. Right now, as I understand it (my info may not be accurate), > mining on a PC/GPU is a money-losing proposition because the crossover > has been reached where the electricity to mine a new coin costs more > than the coin is worth. I don't know if FPGA mining has reached that > crossover yet. But I figure ASIC's can surely beat FPGA's. > > That said, I don't participate in Bitcoin myself and only pay limited > attention to it because it has some technically cool aspects. I would think the value of bitcoins might increase because of the increased costs. I have seen a little about the advances in GPU programming because of this and I understand they are doing this in FPGAs, but what is the angle that would produce value that others aren't doing? > I suspect that people who bought expensive FPGA mining rigs never turned > a profit and were just in it to have the fastest rig on the block. The > idea of making ASICs is to sell them to the people who build those > systems, rather than to go into the mining business one's self. That > lets you leave the infrastructure costs (boards and boxes to hold the > chips) up to the miners and rig builders. Ok, so it's a bit like selling the stuff for custom PCs, not because they are faster so much, but because they are *cool*. Also like hotrod cars. Possibilities... But in 350 nm? Maybe, maybe not. If the point is speed, then the really old technology won't cut it I think. FPGAs may be faster for the $$$. Not sure. >>> Arduino-like development board... Sort of a revival of the Novix. >> What exactly is the market? Just hobby? > > Shrug, dunno, some people on this newsgroup and elsewhere think there is > a market for Forth chips. From Koopman's book I can see how there might > be some application areas that aren't well-served by conventional chips. At one time I tried to sell COTS DSP boards for the PC-104 bus. It had a market, there was some competition... heck, I was even offered a job by one competitor who was much more established. But there is a lot more to selling processor boards than just making boards, support is a big deal. Also, the real issue is I/O (something GA doesn't seem to understand fully). People want lots of different types of I/O. It takes a lot to produce all that and it takes a lot of people. Add in the fact that it has an... what shall we call it... oddball processor, even if it is a very good processor, and how well would it sell? Certainly the way to start this would be with FPGAs. The ASIC would reduce? the cost and possibly improve the speed? A 10 year old FPGA runs my CPU at 50 MHz and today's Cortex M4 processors don't run much faster than that, at least from Flash, maybe push 100 MHz from RAM. I wonder how fast it might run in 350 nm? >>> * Auditable security processor... 100% FOSS toolchain >> How viable is this as a profitable product? I know the governmental >> market is controlled by NSA and it is unlikely to get approval if they >> didn't make it. I suppose there is commercial utility, but how to >> capitalize on that? > > Hard to say. There is certainly a commercial market for security > hardware (financial sector etc.) that is a relatively low-volume niche > willing to pay high prices for specialized products. Combine that with > relatively low development and NRE costs, and maybe there is a profit to > be had. You are right that the NSA makes its own stuff. They don't trust nobody! Very paranoid about the backdoor thing. Who is the market for a security chip specifically? Do you have expertise in this? This might be just the ticket for a niche product. It would need someone with specific knowledge. Part of the problem might be keeping the design under wraps. If it can be done on a shoestring, it can be copied on an even smaller shoestring. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web