Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 2 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 4 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Hello everyone. Does anyone know of any x86 development board who's processing power rivals that of a raspberry pi 2? I also want to run a copy of Linux(it being x86 of course) on one so I don't want something like an Arduino. I want a micro computer that has a decent x86 processor. I was hoping to get a board that has a processor that can run at 800Mhz. I want a board that has an x86 processor that has about as much processing power as a Raspberry Pi 2. I have looked at the Intel Edison but I was not very impressed by the 500Mhz dual core processor. That's a little slow for me. Although it odes cost about as much as a raspberry Pi 2 does. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for your help in advance, — SGA314 I am not available on weekends ( talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the specs of the Intel Edison, I'm not sure how easy it will be to achieve low latency audio output. It does have an I2S out, so perhaps with a low latency DAC you could achieve it, but I'm not so sure. Trying to achieve low latency out on the USB or the SDIO seems like a fools errand to me. Perhaps one of the other buses could be used, but it sounds like something likely to require considerable hardware and software expertise. Well probably you could with USB or SDIO too, if you had that.
Also, if the OP is hoping to use VSTs, are they simply wanting to process internal audio, or are they wanting to process audio from other sources? If it's the later, this seems even more problematic since it seems the Edison lacks audio input.
I mean if you wanted something super small, you could use an Intel Compute Stick. The upcoming Core M one in particular should be significantly more powerful than the Edison. But given its target market, that unsurprisingly has no analog output ports or any general purpose bus, so you'd definitely need to use some sort of USB analog audio output device, which again sounds like a recipe for disaster.
To put it simply, without properly defining your parameters, you're never likely to have success and after many, many questions, the OP still doesn't seem to have done that. At the very least, if the OP believes they can achieve very low latency output with a USB device (for example), they should try to achieve this first. It sounds like they already have most of the resources to achieve this, so it would be a good first step.
Once they've proven it's possible, then they should move on to worrying about whether a Edison or Pi 2 has enough processing power to run their VSTs. There's no point buying an Edison solely for the purpose of running VSTs, if even if you can get it to work, they'll never achieve the low latency audio output you desire. If they find it isn't possible, then they need to go back to the drawing board and redefine their requirements.
And it's not like this is the first time this issue has came up, Nimur in particular, but also me and others have pointed out it was entirely unclear whether the OP will be able to achieve low latency output with their Raspberry Pi 2, yet from what I can tell, they haven't yet determined whether they could do so, but instead spend the next month or so working out if they could run VSTs on their Pi 2.
There's no reason why you need to get VST working to prove whether or not your setup is capable of low latency audio processing. If your setup isn't capable of low latency audio processing with simple native effects, then it isn't going to be capable of low latency processing with VST. Since you already have a Pi 2, which you believe is capable of low latency audio processing, even though others are uncertain, this is a very good proof of concept/test system
Since I'm fairly sure you don't have unlimited funds, it would be fairly silly to buy an Intel Edison, or whatever board, which has sufficient processing power for VSTs, but which can potentially never achieve the low latency processing you require.
In other words, you seem be approaching this in the wrong order.
To give an example of what I'm talking about, the Intel Compute Stick which is targeted at a totally different market neverthekess mets you 1.5ghz requirement below but I'm not sure how you're going to power it (from what I can tell it uses 5V/2A) and I have no idea how you're going to get low latency processing from it. But if you can do it from an Edison or a Pi 2, perhaps you can do it from the Intel Compute Stick depending on how you actually do it. However since you have no idea how you're actually going to do it if you even can from an Edison or a Pi 2, you have no way to know if you can do it from a Compute Stick.
To some extent, it may be useful to work out what options are out there before you try doing it with the Pi 2, so you can concentrate on them. (Although this doesn't really explain why you spent so long working out whether you could do VST processing with the Pi 2, but I guess that's a moot point now.) So for example if you plan to use a Compute Stick, you could concentrate on getting realtime processing via USB in put and out put via the Pi.
But it didn't sound like this was your plan, and you reply seems to further confirm that this.
There are still caveats, it could be that the Intel USB stack is or isn't able to achieve low latency whereas whatever USB stack is used by the Pi 2 is the contrary. But it still makes sense to start with what you have and seeing what is and isn't possible with it before you get too far in to other options which could very well suffer the same problem.
Are there free tools that will do this: given an input XML file, output 1) a list of the element types in the XML file, 2) for each element type, list the attributes that are used with an element instance of that type, 3) containment relations among the different element types? Thanks. -- 134.242.92.2 ( talk) 17:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Why can I change file permissions without sudo?
Shan@XYShan:~$ ls -l a.sh -rw-rw-r-- 1 k4 k4 114 Sep 4 00:13 a.sh Shan@XYShan:~$ chmod +x a.sh Shan@XYShan:~$ ls -l a.sh -rwxrwxr-x 1 k4 k4 114 Sep 4 00:13 a.sh
Shouldn't that be restricted to admins?-- YX-1000A ( talk) 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 2 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 4 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Hello everyone. Does anyone know of any x86 development board who's processing power rivals that of a raspberry pi 2? I also want to run a copy of Linux(it being x86 of course) on one so I don't want something like an Arduino. I want a micro computer that has a decent x86 processor. I was hoping to get a board that has a processor that can run at 800Mhz. I want a board that has an x86 processor that has about as much processing power as a Raspberry Pi 2. I have looked at the Intel Edison but I was not very impressed by the 500Mhz dual core processor. That's a little slow for me. Although it odes cost about as much as a raspberry Pi 2 does. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for your help in advance, — SGA314 I am not available on weekends ( talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the specs of the Intel Edison, I'm not sure how easy it will be to achieve low latency audio output. It does have an I2S out, so perhaps with a low latency DAC you could achieve it, but I'm not so sure. Trying to achieve low latency out on the USB or the SDIO seems like a fools errand to me. Perhaps one of the other buses could be used, but it sounds like something likely to require considerable hardware and software expertise. Well probably you could with USB or SDIO too, if you had that.
Also, if the OP is hoping to use VSTs, are they simply wanting to process internal audio, or are they wanting to process audio from other sources? If it's the later, this seems even more problematic since it seems the Edison lacks audio input.
I mean if you wanted something super small, you could use an Intel Compute Stick. The upcoming Core M one in particular should be significantly more powerful than the Edison. But given its target market, that unsurprisingly has no analog output ports or any general purpose bus, so you'd definitely need to use some sort of USB analog audio output device, which again sounds like a recipe for disaster.
To put it simply, without properly defining your parameters, you're never likely to have success and after many, many questions, the OP still doesn't seem to have done that. At the very least, if the OP believes they can achieve very low latency output with a USB device (for example), they should try to achieve this first. It sounds like they already have most of the resources to achieve this, so it would be a good first step.
Once they've proven it's possible, then they should move on to worrying about whether a Edison or Pi 2 has enough processing power to run their VSTs. There's no point buying an Edison solely for the purpose of running VSTs, if even if you can get it to work, they'll never achieve the low latency audio output you desire. If they find it isn't possible, then they need to go back to the drawing board and redefine their requirements.
And it's not like this is the first time this issue has came up, Nimur in particular, but also me and others have pointed out it was entirely unclear whether the OP will be able to achieve low latency output with their Raspberry Pi 2, yet from what I can tell, they haven't yet determined whether they could do so, but instead spend the next month or so working out if they could run VSTs on their Pi 2.
There's no reason why you need to get VST working to prove whether or not your setup is capable of low latency audio processing. If your setup isn't capable of low latency audio processing with simple native effects, then it isn't going to be capable of low latency processing with VST. Since you already have a Pi 2, which you believe is capable of low latency audio processing, even though others are uncertain, this is a very good proof of concept/test system
Since I'm fairly sure you don't have unlimited funds, it would be fairly silly to buy an Intel Edison, or whatever board, which has sufficient processing power for VSTs, but which can potentially never achieve the low latency processing you require.
In other words, you seem be approaching this in the wrong order.
To give an example of what I'm talking about, the Intel Compute Stick which is targeted at a totally different market neverthekess mets you 1.5ghz requirement below but I'm not sure how you're going to power it (from what I can tell it uses 5V/2A) and I have no idea how you're going to get low latency processing from it. But if you can do it from an Edison or a Pi 2, perhaps you can do it from the Intel Compute Stick depending on how you actually do it. However since you have no idea how you're actually going to do it if you even can from an Edison or a Pi 2, you have no way to know if you can do it from a Compute Stick.
To some extent, it may be useful to work out what options are out there before you try doing it with the Pi 2, so you can concentrate on them. (Although this doesn't really explain why you spent so long working out whether you could do VST processing with the Pi 2, but I guess that's a moot point now.) So for example if you plan to use a Compute Stick, you could concentrate on getting realtime processing via USB in put and out put via the Pi.
But it didn't sound like this was your plan, and you reply seems to further confirm that this.
There are still caveats, it could be that the Intel USB stack is or isn't able to achieve low latency whereas whatever USB stack is used by the Pi 2 is the contrary. But it still makes sense to start with what you have and seeing what is and isn't possible with it before you get too far in to other options which could very well suffer the same problem.
Are there free tools that will do this: given an input XML file, output 1) a list of the element types in the XML file, 2) for each element type, list the attributes that are used with an element instance of that type, 3) containment relations among the different element types? Thanks. -- 134.242.92.2 ( talk) 17:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Why can I change file permissions without sudo?
Shan@XYShan:~$ ls -l a.sh -rw-rw-r-- 1 k4 k4 114 Sep 4 00:13 a.sh Shan@XYShan:~$ chmod +x a.sh Shan@XYShan:~$ ls -l a.sh -rwxrwxr-x 1 k4 k4 114 Sep 4 00:13 a.sh
Shouldn't that be restricted to admins?-- YX-1000A ( talk) 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)