Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What about power and cost? (Score 1) 77

by tsahil (#38523678) Attached to: PandaBoard ES Benchmarked
That was what I meant. Trying to compare Intel Atom to TI OMAP4 by checking the performance of a software video codec is plain wrong. Both chips are headed towards mobility and consumer electronic devices, where things like power consumption (which was already mentioned) is a lot more important than number crunching. The TI OMAP4 was designed with multimedia in mind, and as such it includes hardware accelerators for things like H.264 encoding/decoding and a lot of other things (3D graphics comes to mind). This being the case, you wouldn't be using an x264 software codec on it - you'd simply use its hardware acceleration. And there - the numbers we have from work are 20% CPU usage on the ARM for 720p30fps encoding/decoding + sending that media over the network using RTP (running over UDP). As far as I know, the Intel Atom has no such accelerators, which requires it to do H.264 using software codecs such as x264. The two are not comparable. Intel Atom has its uses. OMAP4 has its uses. The comparison mentioned is simply irrelevant, as for the uses the OMAP4 will be taken they simply make no sense.

Comment: Re:What about power and cost? (Score 2, Insightful) 77

by tsahil (#38514820) Attached to: PandaBoard ES Benchmarked
There's even more to it... In these benchmarks the accelerators of the OMAP4 were totally ignored. These would have improved things like x264 encoding to being a lot faster even than a Core i7 chip. The OMAP4 as do other ARM Cortex A9 chipsets, have a lot of accelerators to deal specifically with highly computational tasks - and when you develop you actually use them...

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin

Working...