5 ms·

cotton candy: $199, 1.2GHz dual A9, quad Mali400 GPU, 1GB (comparable to iPad 3, I think) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Candy_%28single-board_computer%29

by 6ren 14y ago

cotton candy: $199, 1.2GHz dual A9, quad Mali400 GPU, 1GB (comparable to iPad 3, I think) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Candy_%28single-board_computer%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Candy_%28single-board_co... MK802: $74, 1.5GHz single A8, single Mali400, 512MB http://www.aliexpress.com/product-fm/563764893-Freeshipping-MK802-Mini-PC-Mini-Android4-0-dongle-android-IPTV-google-tv-smart-android-box-allwinner-wholesalers.html http://www.aliexpress.com/product-fm/563764893-Freeshipping-... (NB: many websites give 1.5GHz/Mail400, but not listed on the device's own site...)

ajross 14y ago
Not to dump on the ARM love, but you can get Intel Cedar Trail boards which compete really well on performance and price (especially if you need RAM) with those offerings. And of course have the advantage of being plain old PCs: http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOXD2700MUD-Dual-Core-Mini-ITX-Motherboard/dp/B006ZN4S22/ref=pd_sim_sbs_pc_7 http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOXD2700MUD-Dual-Core-Mini-ITX-M...
- joshu 14y ago
  The second one is a complete machine, not a motherboard...
  - ajross 14y ago
    True enough. Embedded devices are never 1:1 in feature sets. So you'd have to add a $10 DIMM and a $20 power supply. And then you'd have the choice between a $74 stick based on an unknown SoC ("Allwinner A10" apparently is a single 1GHz A8) with minimal software support and a $110 dual core 1.6GHz Atom with 8x the RAM. And it runs Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSE/Mint (hell, even windows if you're into that) out of the box. I'm not dinging the ARM stuff really, just pointing out that for a lot of these "cheap computer" applications the best choice is often just a PC.
    - joshu 14y ago
      Indeed. The ARM stuff is hobbyist only, now. I wouldn't want to run production stuff on one. People really think super tiny machines are very very amazing. I wonder if it's a discontinuity in value perception. The Atom probably uses a bunch more power, though. (Personally I am fond of x86 SBCs such as PCEngines Alix, since they run normal OSs, like you said.)
- 6ren 14y ago
  Sounds good: Dual-Core Atom Processor D2700 (2.13 GHz, 2x 512KB L2 Cache) Do you know how this compares with the original eee PC 701? (Celeron M ULV 353 (512K L2 Cache, 900 MHz, 400 MHz FSB), underclocked to 600MHz http://ark.intel.com/products/27157/Intel-Celeron-M-Processor-ULV-353-%28512K-Cache-900-MHz-400-MHz-FSB%29 http://ark.intel.com/products/27157/Intel-Celeron-M-Processo...) Is it just by clock rate (and # cores), or is Atom faster than Celeron M, per clock-cycle? The ARM cortex-A8, -A9, -A15 give performance of 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 DMIPS/MHz, so I'm thinking Intel might have done the same (though they probably focus on improving performance per watt). Other factors influence performance, but at least this gives some idea.

by 6ren 14y ago

ajross 14y ago

Not to dump on the ARM love, but you can get Intel Cedar Trail boards which compete really well on performance and price (especially if you need RAM) with those offerings. And of course have the advantage of being plain old PCs: http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOXD2700MUD-Dual-Core-Mini-ITX-Motherboard/dp/B006ZN4S22/ref=pd_sim_sbs_pc_7 http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOXD2700MUD-Dual-Core-Mini-ITX-M...

joshu 14y ago
The second one is a complete machine, not a motherboard...
- ajross 14y ago
  True enough. Embedded devices are never 1:1 in feature sets. So you'd have to add a $10 DIMM and a $20 power supply. And then you'd have the choice between a $74 stick based on an unknown SoC ("Allwinner A10" apparently is a single 1GHz A8) with minimal software support and a $110 dual core 1.6GHz Atom with 8x the RAM. And it runs Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSE/Mint (hell, even windows if you're into that) out of the box. I'm not dinging the ARM stuff really, just pointing out that for a lot of these "cheap computer" applications the best choice is often just a PC.
  - joshu 14y ago
    Indeed. The ARM stuff is hobbyist only, now. I wouldn't want to run production stuff on one. People really think super tiny machines are very very amazing. I wonder if it's a discontinuity in value perception. The Atom probably uses a bunch more power, though. (Personally I am fond of x86 SBCs such as PCEngines Alix, since they run normal OSs, like you said.)
6ren 14y ago
Sounds good: Dual-Core Atom Processor D2700 (2.13 GHz, 2x 512KB L2 Cache) Do you know how this compares with the original eee PC 701? (Celeron M ULV 353 (512K L2 Cache, 900 MHz, 400 MHz FSB), underclocked to 600MHz http://ark.intel.com/products/27157/Intel-Celeron-M-Processor-ULV-353-%28512K-Cache-900-MHz-400-MHz-FSB%29 http://ark.intel.com/products/27157/Intel-Celeron-M-Processo...) Is it just by clock rate (and # cores), or is Atom faster than Celeron M, per clock-cycle? The ARM cortex-A8, -A9, -A15 give performance of 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 DMIPS/MHz, so I'm thinking Intel might have done the same (though they probably focus on improving performance per watt). Other factors influence performance, but at least this gives some idea.