4 ms·

Let's look at it a different way. The MacBook battery is 55 watt-hours, the Tesla battery is 100 thousand watt hours. They both run their respective workloads f

Let's look at it a different way. The MacBook battery is 55 watt-hours, the Tesla battery is 100 thousand watt hours. They both run their respective workloads for a similar amount of time. So, less than a tenth of a percent?

phkahler 10y ago
Don't confuse watts with watt-hours. My math stands.
- tw04 10y ago
  Why would you assume they'd be using a CPU running at 100W??? I can get an off-the-shelf Xeon-D 8-core processor that runs at 35W and any single core would STOMP every ARM chip on the market. If I were to build that chip specifically for a car platform my power envelope would drop accordingly. https://ark.intel.com/products/family/87041/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-Family https://ark.intel.com/products/family/87041/Intel-Xeon-Proce... This is an embedded application... not a gaming computer. If I move to Atom - which is what would likely be used for this sort of thing, you're talking less than 5W. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microproces...
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> This is an embedded application... not a gaming computer. If I move to Atom - which is what would likely be used for this sort of thing, you're talking less than 5W. Correct. But Atom processors performance are no better than the competition and don't currently have any of the common automotive peripherals (CAN for example).
    - tw04 10y ago
      Intel is the device manufacturer... it doesn't matter if they're "better". They get to choose what they put into their own hardware, this isn't an open audition. Regardless, you're missing the point. Intel has the means to get into the space and create appropriate CPUs to compete. This acquisition makes it clear they're planning on doing just that.
- cmurphycode 10y ago
  I didn't - I just dropped the time factor out (since they both run their workloads for similar lengths of time).

phkahler 10y ago

Don't confuse watts with watt-hours. My math stands.

tw04 10y ago
Why would you assume they'd be using a CPU running at 100W??? I can get an off-the-shelf Xeon-D 8-core processor that runs at 35W and any single core would STOMP every ARM chip on the market. If I were to build that chip specifically for a car platform my power envelope would drop accordingly. https://ark.intel.com/products/family/87041/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-Family https://ark.intel.com/products/family/87041/Intel-Xeon-Proce... This is an embedded application... not a gaming computer. If I move to Atom - which is what would likely be used for this sort of thing, you're talking less than 5W. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microproces...
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> This is an embedded application... not a gaming computer. If I move to Atom - which is what would likely be used for this sort of thing, you're talking less than 5W. Correct. But Atom processors performance are no better than the competition and don't currently have any of the common automotive peripherals (CAN for example).
  - tw04 10y ago
    Intel is the device manufacturer... it doesn't matter if they're "better". They get to choose what they put into their own hardware, this isn't an open audition. Regardless, you're missing the point. Intel has the means to get into the space and create appropriate CPUs to compete. This acquisition makes it clear they're planning on doing just that.
cmurphycode 10y ago
I didn't - I just dropped the time factor out (since they both run their workloads for similar lengths of time).