[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor
From: |
Tom Rondeau |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:30:19 -0400 |
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Jeffrey Lambert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Running an FFT is a CPU intensive application, and not a bandwidth/IO
> restricted application. The comparison made here is likely not an accurate
> representation of throughput if only data stream to disk is the goal.
>
> ~Jeff
FFT's are actually pretty cheap to calculate (profile it; they usually
aren't a huge consumer of resources unless you're running very large
FFTs).
Tom
>> I run Gnu Radio on an Atom D510 system for narrow-bandwidth radiometry.
>>
>> No way in heck are you going to be able to run at 25Msps for even a
>> *single* USRP2, let alone multiple ones.
>> I tried a 25Msps usrp2_fft.py on my atom D510 system (which is
>> dual-core at 1.6GHz), and it couldn't keep
>> up.
- [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Sharif Shaher, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Marcus D. Leech, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Jeffrey Lambert, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor,
Tom Rondeau <=
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Marcus D. Leech, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Sharif Shaher, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Marcus D. Leech, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Tom Rondeau, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Sharif Shaher, 2010/10/08
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, David Evans, 2010/10/09
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Sharif Shaher, 2010/10/11
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Intel Atom Processor, Marc Epard, 2010/10/08