[TenTec] Orion Processing

[Steve Baron - KB3MM]

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 at lectrosonics.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at 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 at contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Bernard(wtrone)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:27 PM
> To: tentec at 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>