Bienvenido! - Willkommen! - Welcome!

Bitácora Técnica de Tux&Cía., Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BO
Bitácora Central: Tux&Cía.
Bitácora de Información Avanzada: Tux&Cía.-Información
May the source be with you!
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts

Friday, January 25, 2013

AMD Accelerated Processing Units

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/apu-technology-explained/
By Matt Smith
February 18, 2011


what is an apu

The CPU has been the heart of every PC since Intel’s x86 processors became popular over two decades ago. Yet the CPU does have weaknesses,the greatest of which is their relatively linear data execution. Graphics processors, by comparison, consist of many small cores that execute data simultaneously. This makes it easier for them to perform certain tasks, like video decoding and 3D graphics.
Both Intel and AMD know this, and have for some time. In response they’ve combined the strengths of both CPUs and GPUs, resulting in a new type of product called the APU.

APU Architecture

what is an apu
What is an APU? The term APU stands for Accelerated Processing Unit. At the moment, this is a term that only AMD is using for its products. Intel’s recently released update to its processors also qualifies as an APU; Intel simply seems unwilling to use the definition. That’s understandable, since the company has been known as the world’s leading CPU maker for years.
An APU is simply a processor that combines CPU and GPU elements into a single architecture. The first APU products being shipped by AMD and Intel do this without much fuss by adding graphics processing cores into the processor architecture and letting them share a cache with the CPU. While both AMD and Intel are using their own GPU architectures in their new processors, the basic concepts and reasons behind the decision to bring a GPU into the architecture remain the same.

The Benefits Of An APU

AMD and Intel wouldn’t go to the trouble of integrating a GPU into their CPU architectures if there weren’t some benefits to doing so, but sometimes the benefit of a new technology seems to be focused more on the company selling the product than the consumer. Fortunately, the benefits of the APU are dramatic and will be noticed by end users.
what is an apu processor
Obviously, improved performance is one advantage. The graphics placed on current APUs are not meant to be competitive with high-end or even mid-range discrete graphics cards, but they are better than previous integrated graphics processors. Intel HD Graphics 3000, the fastest graphics option available on the company’s newest processor, is two to three times quicker than the previous Intel HD Graphics solution, which was on the processor die but not integrated into the architecture. This also makes it possible to include new features, like Intel’s QuickSync video transcoding techology.
Another advantage brought by APUs is improved power efficiency. Integrated the GPU into the architecture makes it possible to share resources and achieve the same results with less silicon. This means an APU can replicate the performance of a system equipped with a low-end discrete graphics card while using far less power. Early benchmarks of Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Fusion laptops make this advantage obvious; systems equipped with these processors have better battery life than similar system saddled with a CPU and a separate discrete or integrated graphics processor.

Should You Buy One?

Now you know the benefits of an APU, you may be thinking about purchasing one of these fancy new processors. Upgrading to a new processor is never inexpensive, however. Is an APU worth your money?
The answer is yes, but on the other hand, it doesn’t matter if you upgrade now or later. You are, eventually, going to end up owning an APU no matter what you do. All of Intel’s processors from here on, with the exception of the Atom processor, will be APUs. AMD’s entire line of processors will be updated to APUs by the end of this year. And Nvidia, which recently announced intentions to create a line of ARM processors for desktops, will of course be creating an APU.
In fact, you may want to wait, if only because this technology is relatively new. Both Intel and AMD are hard at work on new products that further leverage the advantages of this design, and AMD’s desktop APU is unlikely to become available before the summer.

Conclusion

The APU is the future of processor design. The only question at this point is the term itself. While Intel’s new processors also fit the definition of an APU, the term APU is only used by AMD in its marketing. If Nvidia also decides this is a term worth using as it develops its new processor it may have some legs. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be surprised if Intel uses its considerable marketshare might to squash it.
But whatever this new generation of hardware is called five years from now, the results are the same. APUs are here, they’re awesome, and they’ll make it easier for users to enjoy media without consuming unreasonable amounts of power.
The benchmark graph is part of Anandtech’s review of Intel’s Sandy Bridge processors. Check it out for full information.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Hi-tech stuff

Source

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, January 30, 2011

La tecnología comunista y sus restos

List_of_Soviet_computer_systems
Hardware (notar la copia total de la tecnología de la ideología enemiga)

Operating systems
  • For Kronos
  • For BESM
    • D-68 (Д-68, Диспетчер-68, Dispatcher-68)
    • DISPAK (“Диспетчер Пакетов,” Dispatcher of the Packets)
    • DUBNA (“ДУБНА”)
  • For ES EVM
    • DOS/ES (“Disk Operation system for ES EVM”)
    • OS/ES (“Disk Operation system for ES EVM”)
  • For SM EVM
    • RAFOS (РАФОС), FOBOS (ФОБОС) and FODOS (ФОДОС) — RT-11 clones
    • OSRV (ОСРВ) — RSX-11M clone, one of the most popular Soviet multi-user systems
    • DEMOS — BSD-based Unix-like; later was ported to x86 and some other architectures
    • INMOS (ИНМОС, Инструментальная мобильная операционная система)
  • For 8-bit microcomputers
  • For ZX Spectrum clones
  • For different platforms
    • MISS (Multipurpose Interactive timeSharing System)
    • ES EVMES1010, 
    •  ES EVM ES1045, 
    • D3-28M, PC-compatible etc.
      External links
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, July 20, 2009

solid capacitor versus electrolytic capacitor

Source
One of the most noticeable things about a GIGABYTE Ultra Durable motherboard is that every capacitor used is a cutting-edge Conductive Polymer Aluminum Solid Capacitor from the world's leading vendors. Visually, it is easy to see the difference. The motherboard on the left was designed using all solid capacitors, while the motherboard on the right uses the more common and less expensive electrolytic capacitors.


Solid & Electrolytic

Solid capacitors and electrolytic capacitors both store electricity and discharge it when needed. The difference, however, is that solid capacitors contain a solid organic polymer, while electrolytic capacitors use a common liquid electrolyte, hence, the terms solid capacitor versus electrolytic capacitors. So how does this actually effect the capacitor's performance?

Six times longer lifespan
In terms of lifespan, solid capacitors last longer than electrolytic capacitors, especially at lower working temperatures. As the table below shows, as the temperature decreases, the lifespan for solid capacitors increases. At 65◦C, the average lifespan for a solid capacitor is more than six times greater than electrolytic capacitors.
In actual years, the solid capacitor will last approximately 23 years, while the electrolytic capacitor dies after only three years. Granted, most people will replace their motherboard long before 23 years, but clearly, solid capacitors have a lifetime advantage over electrolytic capacitors.

Average Lifespan of Solid Caps. vs. Electrolytic Caps

Temp°C
Electrolytic Capacitors
(Working Hours)
Solid Capacitors (Working Hours)
95◦C
4,000 h
6,324 h
1.5X longer
85◦C
8,000 h
20,000 h
2.5X longer
75◦C
16,000 h
63,245 h
4X longer
65◦C
32,000 h
200,000 h
6.25X longer


Higher tolerance for high frequencies & temperatures
Solid capacitors have a higher tolerance not only for higher temperatures, but they also perform better with higher frequencies and higher current than electrolytic capacitors.

First, let's try to understand the higher tolerance for high frequencies. In order to do this, we must first understand a little bit about Impedance. Impedance is a measure of the overall opposition of a circuit to current and is measured in ohms (Ω). A better way to phrase this might be to say that impedance is how much the circuit (in this case the capacitor) impedes the flow of current. The less the flow of current is impeded, the better. Less impedance also means less heat is generated.



The chart above shows that solid capacitors are able to deliver substantially lower impedance at higher frequencies. Because there is less impedance at higher frequencies, solid capacitors are more stable and generate less heat than electrolytic capacitors.

Solid capacitors also deliver more stable capacitance and are less likely to be affected by temperature changes. As the chart below shows, even at extreme temperatures, solid capacitors have relatively stable capacitance, especially when compared to electrolytic capacitors.



By being able to tolerate higher frequencies and higher temperatures, solid capacitors not only last longer, but they also deliver increased stability and performance over electrolytic capacitors.


No more exploding capacitors
A few years ago, some people started experiencing problems with their electrolytic capacitors on their motherboards. Users began noticing bulging, or swelling of the capacitors, and in some cases, the capacitors were even leaking fluid. Obviously, this dramatically lowered their system's performance, and in several cases, damaged the motherboard to the point where it no longer operated.


There has been a lot of speculation as to what actually caused these capacitors to fail. One theory was that the electrolytic solution used by some manufacturers for a number of capacitors was faulty. That aside, even the highest quality electrolytic capacitors can fail. Take for example an "always on" system in an internet café. The strain put on the capacitors in terms of constant, prolonged usage, as well as high system temperatures can easily lead to capacitor failure. Remember, an electrolytic capacitor running at 85◦C has an average lifespan of just 8,000 hours, which is less than one year.
As there is no liquid component to solid capacitors, they don't experience leaking or exploding. In addition, their ability to tolerate extreme conditions and their overall robustness, make them much more suited to extreme stress operation.
Generating less heat then their electrolyte counterparts, solid capacitors last on average 6 times longer, helping to ensure your system never quits. Additionally, solid capacitors have a higher tolerance not only for higher temperatures, but they also perform better with higher frequencies and higher current than electrolytic capacitors. The excellent heat resistance and better electric conductivity allows enthusiasts to tweak the highest levels of performance from their system without fear of excessive capacitor wear or exploding capacitors.
Benefits of All Solid Capacitor Design:

  • Longer Life Time
  • Increased Stability
  • Increased Reliability
  • Better Overclocking Performance
  • No Exploding Capacitors
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Sunday, July 19, 2009

CCD and CMOS image sensors

Source
Both CCD (charge-coupled device) and CMOS (complimentary metal-oxide semiconductor) image sensors start at the same point -- they have to convert light into electrons. If you have read the article How Solar Cells Work, you understand one technology that is used to perform the conversion. One simplified way to think about the sensor used in a digital camera (or camcorder) is to think of it as having a 2-D array of thousands or millions of tiny solar cells, each of which transforms the light from one small portion of the image into electrons. Both CCD and CMOS devices perform this task using a variety of technologies.
The next step is to read the value (accumulated charge) of each cell in the image. In a CCD device, the charge is actually transported across the chip and read at one corner of the array. An analog-to-digital converter turns each pixel's value into a digital value. In most CMOS devices, there are several transistors at each pixel that amplify and move the charge using more traditional wires. The CMOS approach is more flexible because each pixel can be read individually.
CCDs use a special manufacturing process to create the ability to transport charge across the chip without distortion. This process leads to very high-quality sensors in terms of fidelity and light sensitivity. CMOS chips, on the other hand, use traditional manufacturing processes to create the chip -- the same processes used to make most microprocessors. Because of the manufacturing differences, there have been some noticeable differences between CCD and CMOS sensors.
  • CCD sensors, as mentioned above, create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise.
  • Because each pixel on a CMOS sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of a CMOS chip tends to be lower. Many of the photons hitting the chip hit the transistors instead of the photodiode.
  • CMOS traditionally consumes little power. Implementing a sensor in CMOS yields a low-power sensor.
  • CCDs use a process that consumes lots of power. CCDs consume as much as 100 times more power than an equivalent CMOS sensor.
  • CMOS chips can be fabricated on just about any standard silicon production line, so they tend to be extremely inexpensive compared to CCD sensors.
  • CCD sensors have been mass produced for a longer period of time, so they are more mature. They tend to have higher quality and more pixels.

Based on these differences, you can see that CCDs tend to be used in cameras that focus on high-quality images with lots of pixels and excellent light sensitivity. CMOS sensors traditionally have lower quality, lower resolution and lower sensitivity. CMOS sensors are just now improving to the point where they reach near parity with CCD devices in some applications. CMOS cameras are usually less expensive and have great battery life.
These links will help you learn more:

Sensor sizes
Digital Camera Image Sensors
Image Sensor Type
Used in...
(some examples,
not meant to be a comprehensive list)
Width
mm
Height
mm

Diagonal mm
(equals 'normal' lens focal length)
Focal length
Factor
1/4"
3.2
2.4
4.0
11.3
1/3.6"
4.0
3.0
5.0
9.0
1/3.2"
 Canon A100, A200
4.5
3.4
5.7
7.9
1/3"
 Nikon Coolpix 100, 300
Casio QV-8000SX
4.8
3.6
6.0
7.5
1/2.7"
 Nikon Coolpix 2500, 3500
Sony DSC-P31
Pentax Optio 230, 330GS
Canon A40
Olympus C-730
Minolta Dimage X, Xi
5.3
4.0
6.6
6.8
1/2.5"
 Olympus C-740, C-750
Ricoh R3, R4, R5
Canon SD700, SD800



1/2"
 Nikon Coolpix 950
6.4
4.8
8.0
5.6
1/1.8"
 Nikon Coolpix 995, 4300, 4500, 5400
Canon Powershot G2, G3, G5, S30, S40, S45 , SD900
Kodak DX3900, 4900
Pentax Optio 330RS, 430RS
Olympus C-5050, C-5060, C-8080
Ricoh GR-D, GX8
7.2
5.3
8.9
5.0
1/1.76"
 Leica Digilux 1
Panasonic DMC-LC5
?
?
9.0
4.7
2/3"
 Nikon Coolpix 5000, 5700
Sony DSC-F717
Minolta 7i, 7Hi
8.8
6.6
11.0
4.1
1"
12.8
9.6
16.0
2.8
4/3"
 Kodak-Olympus-Fuji-Panasonic-Sigma new digital standard. This system uses the same standard lens mount for any brand camera and lens.
Maybe this is the digital system for the future.
First model is the Olympus E-1 with the 5 megapixel chip as displayed above. Second model is the Olympus E-300 with an 8 megapixel chip also made by Kodak. Now also E-500, E-330 and E-400.
Visit the 4/3 site for more information.
18.0
13.5
22.5
2.0

Canon D30, D60, 10D
22.7
15.1
27.3
1.6

Nikon D1, D1H, D1X, D100
23.7
15.6
28.4
1.5

Pentax *ist D
23.5
15.7
28.3
1.5

Canon 1D
28.7
17.8
33.8
1.4
APS
 Advanced photo system film cameras (various crops in camera) APS-H here at 16:9 ratio
30.2
16.7
34.5
1.2
35mm
 35mm film cameras.
Full frame digital SLRs such as Contax N, Canon 1Ds, Kodak DCS14n
36.0
24.0
43.3
1.0
645
 Medium format 120 roll film
56.0
41.5
69.7
0.6
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)