ultra low power "quad core" cpu chips for tablets

[vinceASPECT]

Hello,

ultra low power quad core mobile cpu chips seem thin on the ground.

I have only seen that VIA make one for netbooks.

http://www.viagallery.com/index.php?option=com_flickr4j&Task=sets&Set=72157626788947791&Page=1&Photo=5810895993

Nvidia Kal EL chip which is kind of a "tegra 2" idea beefed up to "quad core" but i am not sure if it is available yet.

Arm have the "a15 cortex" quad core chip which has been shown in some tablets
but is very very thin on the ground...it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A15_MPCore

i was looking at ultra low power UMPC styled cpu chips.

I realize that there are quad core mobile cpu chips like core-i7 chips.


Vince.

[curaga]

Aren't the quad ARMs only coming in 2012 (Nvidia's possibly in late 2011)? Via's quad should be available now, but it's a normal x86.

[vinceASPECT]

Yes Curaga.

It seemsyou are exactly correct.

The via quad is available now and is x86.

There is arm cortex a9 family of chips which can reach up to quad cores.

Then there is the Arm cortex a15 family which are yet due out and reach
quad core and maybe more.

The Kal El by nvidia isdue out late 2011 and that is also quad core for
slates and things.

There are, ofcourse, other types of cpu's by other brands but the
ones that cross my path are listed above.

it just interested me to see how things are going. Prices versus
performance and what is available out there.

Although with cloud computing now, it's pointing to less need
for horsepower on the host machine. CLoud computing appears
to be very cheap and handy indeed.

Vince.

[hiro]

For me ARM devices were the definite NO to the cloud.

[vinceASPECT]

Hello Hiro.

you mean?

using an arm device to dial into a cloud computer did not work?

Vince.

[hiro]

There are these clouds which can help risky start-ups scale well without much people to look after the servers. Visualization was last decade's buzzword, but it was describing practically the same.
I also used to figure getting a VPS every now and then, but it's always been cheaper to leave my clouds at home.

Small, power saving ARM devices which don't get hot are cool. And nobody trips over the cables now that everything's been nailed to the wall.
Admittedly I used to run an x86 server 24/7 before, but now I feel nice, snug and warm about it as my house stays cool

What is it that you're computing so intense you can't do it at home? What is your cloud?

[vinceASPECT]

hello

hiro i am not sure what you mean.

You original comment....(a) "for me, Arm devices were a definite NO to the cloud"

and then asked "do you mean it was not possible to dial into a cloud machine from your local Arm device" in response to that sentence (a) above. I don't understand your reply.

Maybe i don't understand the meaning of "cloud computing" the same way you do.

I just use a local Arm device or laptop to dial into a single distant "cloud" computer. The distant machine is a Ubuntu Linux desktop machine and i use applications *live* within that Linux box. In other words, i just use that distant machine in the same manner as if it is my real local computer.

Maybe my method is just called "using a remote machine" and not a cloud computer ............but it is advertized as a "cloud computer".

I don't use cloud computers or remote machines as servers. I use them as normal desktop computers.

V.

[vinceASPECT]

hello

hiro i am not sure what you mean.

You original comment....(a) "for me, Arm devices were a definite NO to the cloud"

and then i asked in response to (a), "do you mean it was not possible to dial into a cloud machine from your local Arm device" .

I don't understand your latest reply.

Maybe i don't understand the meaning of the term "cloud computing" in the same way you understand it.

I just use a local Arm device or laptop to dial into a single distant "cloud" computer.

The distant machine is an Ubuntu Linux gui desktop machine and i use applications *live* within that Linux box. In other words, i just use that distant machine in the same manner as if it is my real local computer.

Maybe my method is just called "using a remote machine" and not called "using a cloud computer" ............but it is advertised as a "cloud computer".

I don't use cloud computers or remote machines as servers. I use them as normal desktop computers.

V.

[hiro]

Heh, yeah that's why I don't like the term "cloud" at all. I now understand what you're doing, but I would personally be quite concerned about latencies this way.

I mean before ARM I would have thought about getting a VPS or so, now I use an ARM at home and can't see the need for the "cloud" any more. I don't use this for X/graphics, but mainly file , http, print, torrent services.

Also some people think working with stuff like google mail is cloud computing. It's a buzzword really.

[vinceASPECT]

ahh right,

yes, in my case, the distant computer is much faster than my local machine.

The local machine just processes the video in protocol stuff to "talk" to the distant
machine. This requires very little cpu power locally. ALl the other work is done
on the distant cpu (inside the distant virtual computer which has it's own ram, HDD and
cpu chip.)

The distant machine is infact much faster than the local machine. Over 10 times faster
so even internet surfing on the distant machine shows up quiker on my local screen
than if the local machine is doing it's own internet surfing.  There is no latency here but
infact acceleration in all areas of computing. The video is even smooth over 5 mega bit
DSL. The only issue is that the distant machine does not support sound but they are
suppossed to be adding that support some time.

For servers and stuff, i just use a web hosting company. To host ftp files and web pages
and stuff.

it seems to work great "cloud computing" if you can call it that.

The thing is....it's free, which makes perfect sense to me

^_^

V.