3 ms·
This is not exceptionally power efficient. It does around 90 gigaops/sec(probably 5bit ops) and programmable only in forth. Parallela has a chip that does 90 g
by hershel 13y ago
This is not exceptionally power efficient. It does around 90 gigaops/sec(probably 5bit ops) and programmable only in forth. Parallela has a chip that does 90 gflops/watt and is programmable in c/open-cl/r and maybe other tools. That's much more usefulland power efficient.
But what about better manufacturing technologies for the F18A chip ? first, it negates some of the advantages of working asynchronously , because the much higher leakage current. Second, the processors game was always about software tools and ecosystems, which is the weak point of the F18A, and without solving this , we won't see it in more advanced manufacturing processes.
- boomlinde 13y agoActual power efficiency depends on the application of the CPU. If you have a use case that mostly leaves the CPU in an idle state only to react on occasional events, the F18A would probably be more efficient than the Parallela chip.
- astrobe_ 13y agoYou are comparing apple and oranges here. Programming the F18A directly in Forth allows for much more control over what is executed. I would say that on the contrary, if one is ready or have t put the necessary efforts into it, the chips can be extremely efficient. Provided you're not trying to do silly things like running an OS on it... The manufacturing process might not be up to date, but that's precisely, I believe, one of the strengths of the chip: very low power consumption with cheaper manufacturing process.