Bob, this is not directed at you.
It seems this is one of those unding threads,
Does someone have secret info that
reveals processor speed as the main problem ?
I would think otherwise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Cunnings" <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 22:49
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Orion Processing
> As for the Sharc DSP parts, they appear to be misidentified on the
> schematic. I believe they are AD21065L, really, right? I've never heard of
> an AD21D56L.
>
> If so, the 21065 ran at a maximum of 66 MHz, while the next generation
21161
> (for instance, just one member of the 2116x family) runs at a maximum
speed
> of 100 MHz. However, the 21161 has 2 floating point units, whereas the
21065
> has only one... so in theory a 3x performance boost can be realized with
the
> newer part.
>
> Here we've used the 21161 in recent products, but it's quite impractical
to
> touch the existing 21065 designs; there is nothing remotely close to a
> drop-in upgrade possible because of the huge differences between Sharc
> generations.
>
> RC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Bernard(wtrone)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:27 PM
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: [TenTec] Orion Processing
>
>
> I don't know if I have seen the numbers (operating speed, etc.) for
the
> Orion's processor and DSP chips/ units. Does anyone have them? Since
this
> design is probably going on 3 years old, what capabilities do the newer
> processors and DSPs have? If you believe in Moore's law, then the speed
> should be 2-4 times faster. I'm also wondering if the newer processors
and
> DSPs are pin for pin compatible with the current ones.
>
> Why am I curious?
>
> Well, there has been some discussion on this board about a complete
> rewrite of the code, version 2.XXXXX. It could be that the new
Isn't that pure speculation.
Like, faster must be better.
> code will
> run "better" with faster processors, or, maybe, need better processors.
> And, a faster set of processors just may "solve" some of the problems with
> the sweep, and add a little more capability elsewhere.
Lets get rid of the sweep <gr?
>
> Just sort of thinking out loud.
>
> 73,
>
>
> Bernard, WA4OEJ
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|