"John S. Rhoades" wrote: > > systems, why not just use the host CPU? With dual Athlons and low > latency patches, you have a huge number of CPU cycles per sample
Because it doesn't have enough power. Think about few biggest Creamware Pulsars running in dual Athlon system. > available at the drop of a millisecond. Not to mention a nice, > standard development tool chain. I expect a 1 GHz Athlon ($70) is the > equivalent of several state-of-the-art DSPs, and cheaper as well. DSP processors are significantly cheaper and give much more DSP power / consumed W. Would you like to have GSM phone with Athlon? It would weight 5 kilos and you would have to carry a car battery to run it! > My hifi "preamp" is a PC with Athlon 900 Mhz processer and RME > Hammerfall. It is loafing along at 35% utilisation while doing 24,000 > tap convolutions on 6 channels at 48 kHz (with fft-based convolution > algorithm). 6 channels isn't much and that doesn't have much in common with my app, except complex convolution (which is only a very small part of it). My 1 GHz athlon has 100% CPU load with only a tiny fraction of usual workload. - Jussi Laako -- PGP key fingerprint: 161D 6FED 6A92 39E2 EB5B 39DD A4DE 63EB C216 1E4B Available at PGP keyservers
