On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:03 +0100, Dieter wrote: > > > > I wonder the > > > > following thing : can we route the PCI channel through an other > > > > channel ? > > > > A converter or an adaptater like in an external hard-disk (IDE to USB), > > snip > > > > Is it possible ? > > > > > > Computers can and often do have multiple Ethernets. Yes, they make > > > PCI cards that supply Ethernet ports. You can even get PCI cards > > > with multiple Ethernet ports. I've seen PCI cards with 4 ports. > > > Some mainboards have more than one Ethernet onboard. They also make > > > USB-to-Ethernet adapters, so you can get an Ethernet port without > > > using up a PCI slot, assuming the computer already has USB. > > > > > > You don't necessarily need a dedicated Ethernet to run this, even if > > > you are viewing HD video. > > So, I understand that my wish doesn´t need a "special" chip which would > > make the relation between the PCI interface and the Ethernet interface, > > right ? > > If you are looking for a PCI card that provides Ethernet ports, they are > widely > available. > > US$12.99 for 10/100 Mbps > http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=252929 > > US$18.99 for 10/100/1000 Mbps > http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=252918 > > (I don't know if these particular cards are good or not, but if not there > are lots of choices.) > > Or do I misunderstand you, and you want a device that works the other way > around? > One that plugs into Ethernet and provides a PCI slot? The only way I know of > to > do that is to use a computer. I am always short on slots, and would love to > find > a Ethernet/SCSI/USB/Firewire/whatever-to-slot adapter. > > > Of course a T base 1000 is better, is it more expensive ? > > The prices of 1000 Mbps PCI Ethernet cards are pretty low now. I'm pretty > sure I've seen lower prices than the ones above. (again, the cards might > be low quality, I don't know) Prices on 1000 Mbps hubs/switches still > seem quite a bit higher than prices for 100 Mbps. > > > Moreover, I suppose that if the g-card in the terminal has to decode, it > > will be a little more hot and more expensive. > > According to the nvidea pdf that Vesa recently posted a URL to, > http://www.nvidia.com/object/TB_purevideo.html > it takes less power (longer battery life) to decode using graphics hardware > than decoding with software in a general purpose CPU. Of course nvidia is > biased.
That is pretty impressive effects with NVIDIA vs without - of course, they are baised. I would be happy to run tests on my Nvidia 6800 if people want me to - just send me a link. (Side note: If it is possible, it would be awesome to have this video card be BrookGPU capable. That is a general purpose programming language for GPUs that is really fun to play with. It is also a LOT faster on GPUs that CPUs and really shows this effect. For example, it took my Nvidia 6800 GPU about 1m11sec to calculate a total of 64 trillion (or so, I still can't fully read this language. That is the right order of magnitude) floating point multiplications on a 1000x1000 array. On the same program, my CPU (Pentium D SMP disabled @ 3.0 Ghz), it took 6 1/2 hours :-). What is so great about BrookGPU is that all you have to do to change CPU/GPU running is just set the BRT_RUNTIME enviroment variable to ogl or cpu respectively) > > My hope is that the OGC chip will handle enough of the decoding that we > can use an inexpensive, low power CPU. Yes, that would be optimal. I am still scared every time I look inside my computer and see the heatsink (or more like heat chamber) over my dual 3Ghz CPU. It is about 10cm on a side and appears to be solid copper, with black plastic and fans everywhere. Inexpensive, low power CPU - This could be a low-end x86, but an ARM/StrongARM/Xscale might also work. ARM based CPUs have much better SoC support than x86, but then they also often don't have a fast external bus, and are not very well supported in OS's other than Linux and CE (of course, it would be running Linux, so it doesn't really matter). > > > Anyway, can we envisage in the flat panel a board with an Ethernet > > connector and a PCI slot on which one plugs the g-card ? > > If you want to do it that way, you would need a board with CPU, memory, > Ethernet chip, PCI slot, and a few other things. > > I was thinking of taking the OGC chip and putting it directly on that > board. Save the cost of the PCI connectors. Not just the cost - The space of a connector. If everything is onboard, you can easily make everything have a maximum height of, say, about 10cm (to account for the heatsink on the CPU. Assuming that you can either bolt a small heatsink to the metal case or even use a low power SoC, you could probably half that height with a little work. Granted, the graphics card would also get hot, but it can be passively cooled through the case as well. The problem with PCI is that the boards reach perpendicular to the mainboard, so in less you want a really weird shaped box to put this in, you have to have a quite tall inclosure. > > > Does that require a "special" chip between the PCI slot and the Ethernet > > connector ? > > Ah, perhaps this is what you were trying to get at above. > > If you want a single chip it would probably have to be special. I think we > can > do it with a few off the shelf chips, but I expect it would take more than > one. > > It would be really nice if we could find a way to avoid needing a general > purpose CPU. > You could always just use another FPGA to implement the Ethernet<->PCI adapter. This also gives you a nice, fast, 10Gbps or so LVDS connection to your GPU as an alternative. > > And here, the idea to offer a monitor with a g-card inside begins > > interesting when one considers this configuration : > > the PC->the DSL box->the screen > > since most of the ISP´s DSL box are more than a modem/router. > > By "more than a modem/router", do you mean "have multiple Ethernet > ports", or something else? Certainly, if you have a DSL modem with > some variety of hub/switch/router built-in, you could plug the > screen into the DSL hub rather than into the computer. Assuming > the DSL modem has a built-in firewall that you trust. This brings up the issue of security - constantly sending your entire screen over an insecure network is not a good idea. > > As well one can foreseen that the next generation of TV will have far > > more logic inside, more capacities to handle graphics or codec, and > > maybe not so different than a terminal. > > Any current TV that has a tuner for OTA digital will be able to decode > whatever codec is used for OTA. (here OTA uses mpeg2ts) Whether there > is a way to feed such a TV mpeg2ts data via a path other than the RF > input is another question. Projectors nowadays sometimes have VGA, DVI, and Composite/Component inputs. Not to limit this to Projectors, but they are often much better equipped for this type of thing than an average TV. nick _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
