4 ms·

Yeah, looks kinda expensive. And not too fast, too: 1.3 GHz quad core CPU's in an age where there are at least twice faster CPU's in smartphones already? Even 1

by listic 12y ago

Yeah, looks kinda expensive. And not too fast, too: 1.3 GHz quad core CPU's in an age where there are at least twice faster CPU's in smartphones already? Even 1.8 GHz octa-core Exynos 5420-based ARM Chromebooks are laggy, judging by reviews. Of course, I understand: doing hardware is hard, and there is an acute shortage of open source ARM SoC's. Still, I wish they could figure out a way to provide more hardware for a smaller price. If nothing else, it would help the adoption of an open hardware laptop greatly: it's kinda weird that all this work is so that only some 1,000 people would get their laptops.

sounds 12y ago
1.3 GHz is not bad at all for an ARM. It's not trying to compete with x86 for the performance crown. It's decently fast and runs linux apps like a web browser just fine.
- listic 12y ago
  There are varying degrees of "fine". I'm sure it's acceptable, but according to tests, even Chromebooks with octa-core 1.8 GHz Exynos chips are somewhat laggy compared to Intel-based alternatives. Chrome OS is basically a browser on Linux, after all. I know the variety of hardware; started with ZX Spectrum (3.5 MHz 8-bit Z80), programmed TCP stack on a 25 MHz 16-bit CPU and I could be fine with a six-year-old laptop (typing on one, actually). Still, premium-priced laptop could use more power; especially if it's ARM, there's never too much.
  - soapdog 12y ago
    that speaks more about the architecture and requirements of ChromeOS than about ARM SoCs. For example, I have Firefox OS running pretty well on an APC Paper with specs so modest that they are trumped by most mid-range smartphones these days. Both systems are very similar in the sense that its a linux kernel and the interaction with the user happens on HTML5 based apps but one is striving to run on single core with 128mb of RAM and the other is running on Chromebook Pixel which is one of the best laptops available in the market today.
  - ksk 12y ago
    The poster you replied to said that you can run apps LIKE a browser just fine. Not that you should run (web) apps INSIDE a browser. When running proper native code works just fine why would you choose to run web "apps" anyway?
- lgeek 12y ago
  I've been using ARM machines as a desktop replacement for a few years now. Native applications run just fine on fairly modest hardware. However, for web browsing, a quad core Cortex-A9 around that frequency and with a 32 bit DRAM interface just crosses in the usable (but somewhat laggy) category. Cortex-A15 with a 64 bit memory interface feels much closer to modern x86 machines. Novena's 64 bit memory interface might actually make a big difference. From my tests, a 1080p 32 bit framebuffer uses up around 1/4 of the system memory bandwidth with a 32 bit DDR3 interface. I also get the feeling that desktop browsers (chromium, firefox) aren't very well optimised for ARM.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - smorrow 12y ago
    Once Servo gets better.
    - smorrow 12y ago
      by which I mean it's supposed to be optimised for these kind of multicore ARMs, if it's not already.
  - aguki 12y ago
    > I also get the feeling that desktop browsers (chromium, firefox) aren't very well optimised for ARM. Freescale provides hardware video decoding support for Chromium's GPU media stack[1]. chrome://gpu snippet on my Sabre Lite running Chromium 37.0.2062.120: Graphics Feature Status * Canvas: Software only. Hardware acceleration disabled * Flash: Hardware accelerated * Flash Stage3D: Hardware accelerated * Flash Stage3D Baseline profile: Hardware accelerated * Compositing: Hardware accelerated and threaded * Rasterization: Hardware accelerated * Threaded Rasterization: Enabled * Video Decode: Hardware accelerated * Video Encode: Hardware accelerated * WebGL: Hardware accelerated [1]https://github.com/Freescale/chromium-imx https://github.com/Freescale/chromium-imx
  - mwcampbell 12y ago
    Just curious, which ARM machines have you been using as desktop replacements? And why bother, since, I presume, none of these are mass-market products? What advantages do they have over x86 machines?

by listic 12y ago

sounds 12y ago

1.3 GHz is not bad at all for an ARM. It's not trying to compete with x86 for the performance crown. It's decently fast and runs linux apps like a web browser just fine.

listic 12y ago
There are varying degrees of "fine". I'm sure it's acceptable, but according to tests, even Chromebooks with octa-core 1.8 GHz Exynos chips are somewhat laggy compared to Intel-based alternatives. Chrome OS is basically a browser on Linux, after all. I know the variety of hardware; started with ZX Spectrum (3.5 MHz 8-bit Z80), programmed TCP stack on a 25 MHz 16-bit CPU and I could be fine with a six-year-old laptop (typing on one, actually). Still, premium-priced laptop could use more power; especially if it's ARM, there's never too much.
- soapdog 12y ago
  that speaks more about the architecture and requirements of ChromeOS than about ARM SoCs. For example, I have Firefox OS running pretty well on an APC Paper with specs so modest that they are trumped by most mid-range smartphones these days. Both systems are very similar in the sense that its a linux kernel and the interaction with the user happens on HTML5 based apps but one is striving to run on single core with 128mb of RAM and the other is running on Chromebook Pixel which is one of the best laptops available in the market today.
- ksk 12y ago
  The poster you replied to said that you can run apps LIKE a browser just fine. Not that you should run (web) apps INSIDE a browser. When running proper native code works just fine why would you choose to run web "apps" anyway?
lgeek 12y ago
I've been using ARM machines as a desktop replacement for a few years now. Native applications run just fine on fairly modest hardware. However, for web browsing, a quad core Cortex-A9 around that frequency and with a 32 bit DRAM interface just crosses in the usable (but somewhat laggy) category. Cortex-A15 with a 64 bit memory interface feels much closer to modern x86 machines. Novena's 64 bit memory interface might actually make a big difference. From my tests, a 1080p 32 bit framebuffer uses up around 1/4 of the system memory bandwidth with a 32 bit DDR3 interface. I also get the feeling that desktop browsers (chromium, firefox) aren't very well optimised for ARM.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- smorrow 12y ago
  Once Servo gets better.
  - smorrow 12y ago
    by which I mean it's supposed to be optimised for these kind of multicore ARMs, if it's not already.
- aguki 12y ago
  > I also get the feeling that desktop browsers (chromium, firefox) aren't very well optimised for ARM. Freescale provides hardware video decoding support for Chromium's GPU media stack[1]. chrome://gpu snippet on my Sabre Lite running Chromium 37.0.2062.120: Graphics Feature Status * Canvas: Software only. Hardware acceleration disabled * Flash: Hardware accelerated * Flash Stage3D: Hardware accelerated * Flash Stage3D Baseline profile: Hardware accelerated * Compositing: Hardware accelerated and threaded * Rasterization: Hardware accelerated * Threaded Rasterization: Enabled * Video Decode: Hardware accelerated * Video Encode: Hardware accelerated * WebGL: Hardware accelerated [1]https://github.com/Freescale/chromium-imx https://github.com/Freescale/chromium-imx
- mwcampbell 12y ago
  Just curious, which ARM machines have you been using as desktop replacements? And why bother, since, I presume, none of these are mass-market products? What advantages do they have over x86 machines?