Processing power of a rebreather controller

[Mr.X]

I am trying to explain to some kids the computing power of a RB controller. Something akin to a Hammerhead, Shearwater, Vision or similar. Can you actually compare the processing power of a RB controller to say something like a Pentium II, or III? Mac 9600?

Or is it it more like a Commordore 64? Just curious because they ask and I have no idea what goes into a RB controller, or for that fact a multi-tissue dive computer.


Thanks in advance. X

 

[padiscubapro]

I am trying to explain to some kids the computing power of a RB controller. Something akin to a Hammerhead, Shearwater, Vision or similar. Can you actually compare the processing power of a RB controller to say something like a Pentium II, or III? Mac 9600?

Or is it it more like a Commordore 64? Just curious because they ask and I have no idea what goes into a RB controller, or for that fact a multi-tissue dive computer.


Thanks in advance. X

Its really hard to compare..

The chip used in The HH, can operate up to about 6 mhz (it doesnt actually run this high) over 3 times ( I dont remember the exact clock rate used on the c64) the speed of the c64, Its less powerful than a pentium in processing power.. It also can do multiplies in hardware where a c64 needs additional software to do that..

Microcontrollers are generally limited to very small amounts of ram, but usually have good onboard hardware suport for communications, pwm creation and even analog-digital conversion.

The chips used in controllers are generally selected for a tradeoff between processing power and power consumption.. The Chip in the HH is one of the lowest power users for the processing it can to ( about 250 microamp per mhz)

 

[Mr.X]

Its really hard to compare..

The chip used in The HH, can operate up to about 6 mhz (it doesnt actually run this high) over 3 times ( I dont remember the exact clock rate used on the c64) the speed of the c64, Its less powerful than a pentium in processing power.. It also can do multiplies in hardware where a c64 needs additional software to do that..

Microcontrollers are generally limited to very small amounts of ram, but usually have good onboard hardware suport for communications, pwm creation and even analog-digital conversion.

The chips used in controllers are generally selected for a tradeoff between processing power and power consumption.. The Chip in the HH is one of the lowest power users for the processing it can to ( about 250 microamp per mhz)

Hey Joe...thanks for tackling a difficult subject. Can't say I understand all the lingo - but will say to kids that it's like comparing apples to oranges. Similar, but different animals. One's good for counting and processing (silent accountant wearing a green tinted visor) and that the basic home computer is like a flashier, better dressed show-off (fashion model with all the trimmings). Cheers. X

 

[Brandon]

The original Pentium processor was right around 60 MHz
Pentium II maxxed out at 450 MHz.
Pentium III maxxed out at 1.4 GHz (1400mhz)
Most newer computers are running somewhere in the 3 GHz - 4 GHz range now.

So, if you want a very basic comparison, if your rebreather computer and your desktop computer did the same math problem.... your desktop computer would do it somewhere around 500 times faster.

Sounds pretty slow now, doesn't it?

But here's a pick me up - it's still three times faster than the computer Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 crew used to land on the moon.

Like padiscubapro mentioned, it isn't entirely about clock speed, but it makes for a much simpler explanation.

-B

 

[SparticleBrane]

Everything you'd ever want to know about any x86 CPU, ever.
http://users.erols.com/chare/main.htm

 

[Sideband]

It's probably closer to the 'computer' in your microwave oven.

Joe

 

[padiscubapro]

Hey Joe...thanks for tackling a difficult subject. Can't say I understand all the lingo - but will say to kids that it's like comparing apples to oranges. Similar, but different animals. One's good for counting and processing (silent accountant wearing a green tinted visor) and that the basic home computer is like a flashier, better dressed show-off (fashion model with all the trimmings). Cheers. X

Comparing today's microcontrollers with processors from the past is quite difficult..

In the past comparing clk rate vs clock rate gave you a reasonable estimation of performance.. Nowadays with all the support added into the controllers even a slow (clock speed wise) microcontroller can outrperform some of the fastest of todays processors in certain applications..

Take Data Encryption for example, the controller in the Dish Network access cards has a built in RSA crypto engine, it can do the complex data decryption faster than just about any of the desktops cpus and its clock rate is THOUSANDS of times less..

The main difference today from the past is that in microcontrollers there is generally added dedicated hardware to take care of stuff that had to be done in the past in software, and now things happen in paralllel and in the background without any cpu intervention..

And now a thing called SOC (system on chip) is becomming more and more prevalent where multiple chips and components are now put on a single die, increasing performance, while lowering cost (if LOTS are made) and power requirements..

 

[L.A.Dave]

Clock speed is something Intel marketers successfully tricked people into buying into. After that bit of deception ran its course, Intel has gotten away from that.

Clock speed of a processor means less about how much it is doing, but mroe about how hard it is trying.

It is sort of like Shaq running with a 3 year old. If the three year old is keeping up with him, megahertz is like the the little kids legs...working way faster, but not accomplishing anything more.

Another analogy might be like muscle/exotic car manufacturers bragging about how many rpms their engines are capable of instead of using horsepower and torque figures.