Which Altera to buy?

On 12/3/2014 12:45 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 12:16:26 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/2/2014 11:27 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:16:29 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/2014 11:10 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 11:07:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2014 10:45 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>>>> It is enough to live this way for the Lord.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what is guiding your technical decisions in designing this
>>>>>> processor?
>>>>>> For example, why 40 bits?  Isn't that going to make some features
>>>>>> of the 386 difficult or impossible to implement?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/li386-documentation/images/eflags.png
>>>>>
>>>>> 40-bits takes you to 1 Terabyte.  If more is needed later, the
>>>>> LibSF 386-x48 can be created.
>>>>
>>>> So you have a requirement for 1 TB of address space.  What are your
>>>> other requirements, but more importantly, what is driving those
>>>> requirements?
>>>
>>> I have no particular hardware requirements except that from the ground
>>> up it be a love offering unto the Lord.  I have a background in x86
>>> space from before I was a Christian, and I'm taking that knowledge
>>> forward, coupled with the things I've wanted or wished for in x86
>>> space throughout my career.
>>>
>>> Ultimately I desire to have a CPU, all motherboard resources, any
>>> BIOS or firmware, the kernel, operating system, and all end-user
>>> software, be created from the LibSF offerings, with all of it being
>>> given unto the world without restriction, as a foundation or base
>>> upon which to build.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with LibSF.  I assume you don't mean, "Libsf is a stack
>> fingerprinting library" which I found on the web.
>
> It's not important.
>
>>> I would like to be able to work with 14nm process technologies, and
>>> create CPUs that would outperform anything that exists ... but it's
>>> not the place the Lord has me.  I am Rick C. Hodgin from Indiana.
>>> No riches.  No skills in such things.  I am waiting for others to
>>> come forward and offer up those things which they have in a similar
>>> way so that we can walk together, arm in arm, for the Lord.  I
>>> believe very strongly that we could give unto the world as good or
>>> better as anything else that's out there because we'd be serving
>>> the Lord, listening to Him, doing what we do for Him, not taking
>>> shortcuts, not being pressed for quarterly fiscal deadlines, but
>>> rather being able to do it right because it's our best we desire
>>> to give.
>>
>> That's the part I don't understand.  Here you say you are, "listening to
>> Him", but how does that turn into defining a CPU? Why/how is the CPU you
>> are designing any better for "Him" or anyone else than any other CPU you
>> might design?
>
> It relates back to the nature of the offer, as it comes from the
> inner drive of love and the offering of the things we posses given
> back unto Him by our heart's desire.

Really?  The technical decisions arise from a drive of love?  That's 
hard to put in a requirements document.


>>> It's up to Him though.  I've been working on this project for over
>>> 28 months.  I haven't found anyone to help me yet, though several
>>> people have been interested at various times, none of them had the
>>> necessary C/C++ coding skills to contribute.  I've contacted
>>> Christian universities, posted on forums, etc.  But, I am hopeful.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Maybe if you find a way to express the motivation and the guiding
>> principles so that others can understand.
>
> They're there.

When you can express them in ways most people can understand and 
appreciate I expect you will find a few people who will join you.

-- 

Rick

On 03/12/14 01:26, Theo Markettos wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't seem to find it now, but someone recently posted a link to 
>> price/LUT vs size data in graph form.  It gets a bit crowded at the 
>> bottom end, but appears to show there is no real price difference 
>> between the two brands.  The data does include a very small number of 
>> other devices than X and A, but not enough to be useful.
> 
> Graphs again:
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~atm26/pubs/FPL2014-ClusterInterconnect.pdf (page 2)
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~atm26/ephemeral/fpga-pricing-2014-loglog.pdf
> 
> I had data for ECP3 and Igloo 2.  Most of the others that Digikey listed are
> either very small (<20K LEs), missing LE data in their table, or legacy
> products (APEX, XC4000, etc).  There wasn't enough data to plot anything
> reasonable from those. A graph of sub-20K devices would be interesting, but
> it's a very different market.
> 
>> In fact it is interesting that the prices get very crowded at the low 
>> end jamming up the graph.  I suggested that he present the data with a 
>> logarithmic Y axis or even in log-log form.  Clearly competitive market 
>> forces at work.
> 
> One of the interesting things to note is the pricing margin between budget
> and premium ranges: you pay 4-6x more per LE in a 'premium' family than in a
> budget range.  So if you can build a system with multiple FPGAs (and we
> described a way to do that in the paper, which fits some applications better
> than others) then it can be economic to use smaller budget FPGAs rather than
> buy the premium FPGA.
> 
> The alternative theory is that people buy budget FPGAs from Digikey, and
> buying premium devices requires a long chat with a salesman, so the Digikey
> list prices for those are mostly fiction that nobody pays.  However the same
> trend seems to apply across all vendors.
> 
> Theo
> 

There is also the point that the chips, especially the premium ones,
include more than just logic elements - somewhere you will also be
paying for hard core processors, fast transceivers, multi-port RAM, more
I/O, etc.  And different architectures have different ideas about what a
logic element actually /is/.  These sorts of things mean that a
price-per-LE is only a simplistic comparison - although it is probably
the best single figure that could be used here.

But I expect that the main reason for the price margin is economy of
scale - far more low-end FPGAs are produced than high-end ones, making
production and testing costs very different.

On 02/12/14 20:56, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

> For RS232, the FPGA pins go to level converters to convert to the
> appropriate voltages, but all the logic (UART) is in the FPGA.
> 

I would recommend you use an FTDI USB chip instead of RS232 - it is
easier, /much/ faster, and can connect to modern PC's that seldom have
RS232 ports.  An FTDI 4232H chip will give you up to 4 UARTs (or 2 UARTs
and 2 SPI/I2C/JTAG) with something like 12 MBaud transmission rates.

On 12/3/2014 4:21 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/12/14 01:26, Theo Markettos wrote:
>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I can't seem to find it now, but someone recently posted a link to
>>> price/LUT vs size data in graph form.  It gets a bit crowded at the
>>> bottom end, but appears to show there is no real price difference
>>> between the two brands.  The data does include a very small number of
>>> other devices than X and A, but not enough to be useful.
>>
>> Graphs again:
>> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~atm26/pubs/FPL2014-ClusterInterconnect.pdf (page 2)
>> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~atm26/ephemeral/fpga-pricing-2014-loglog.pdf
>>
>> I had data for ECP3 and Igloo 2.  Most of the others that Digikey listed are
>> either very small (<20K LEs), missing LE data in their table, or legacy
>> products (APEX, XC4000, etc).  There wasn't enough data to plot anything
>> reasonable from those. A graph of sub-20K devices would be interesting, but
>> it's a very different market.
>>
>>> In fact it is interesting that the prices get very crowded at the low
>>> end jamming up the graph.  I suggested that he present the data with a
>>> logarithmic Y axis or even in log-log form.  Clearly competitive market
>>> forces at work.
>>
>> One of the interesting things to note is the pricing margin between budget
>> and premium ranges: you pay 4-6x more per LE in a 'premium' family than in a
>> budget range.  So if you can build a system with multiple FPGAs (and we
>> described a way to do that in the paper, which fits some applications better
>> than others) then it can be economic to use smaller budget FPGAs rather than
>> buy the premium FPGA.
>>
>> The alternative theory is that people buy budget FPGAs from Digikey, and
>> buying premium devices requires a long chat with a salesman, so the Digikey
>> list prices for those are mostly fiction that nobody pays.  However the same
>> trend seems to apply across all vendors.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>
> There is also the point that the chips, especially the premium ones,
> include more than just logic elements - somewhere you will also be
> paying for hard core processors, fast transceivers, multi-port RAM, more
> I/O, etc.  And different architectures have different ideas about what a
> logic element actually /is/.  These sorts of things mean that a
> price-per-LE is only a simplistic comparison - although it is probably
> the best single figure that could be used here.
>
> But I expect that the main reason for the price margin is economy of
> scale - far more low-end FPGAs are produced than high-end ones, making
> production and testing costs very different.

Don't kid yourself.  Yes, there will be some additional cost for I/O and 
the hard cores and even the more advanced LUT designs.  I can assure you 
that "economy of scale" is not really the issue for any but the biggest 
devices.  But that is largely in the noise when looking at a 60x range 
of cost per LUT.  The high end is charging what the market will bear 
just as is true in nearly any market with constantly renewed products.

-- 

Rick

rickman wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >> rickman wrote:
> >> Maybe if you find a way to express the
> >> motivation and the guiding principles so
> >> that others can understand.
> > They're there.
>
> When you can express them in ways most
> people can understand and appreciate I
> expect you will find a few people who will
> join you.

The people who come to this project will do so
from within. It will be the same drive which
moves me, which moves them -- an indwelling
of His Holy Spirit, and a change, a desire to do
the things we do, in whatever industry we're in,
for Him.

Some (most) will never be able to understand
the drive there, nor see the value/gain in giving
and sharing knowledge, sacrificing intellectual
property rights so our fellow man might be able
to create a better thing upon our prior work,
etc.

It is the nature of the division between born-
again, and not born-again. It is why we need
Jesus Christ, for without a faith in Him, a pursuit
of Truth in our life, the flesh-based blindness
prevents us from moving as we should.

Jesus changes everything about a person's life.
He fundamentally rewires everything about a
person, from the inner thoughts to the inner
drives. He is pervasive, and complete, and He
opens our eyes to see the things we were blind
to before.

I urge you to seek Him, Rick. He will forgive you
too, and change your life. Forever.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

On 12/3/2014 6:00 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>> rickman wrote:
>>>> Maybe if you find a way to express the
>>>> motivation and the guiding principles so
>>>> that others can understand.
>>> They're there.
>>
>> When you can express them in ways most
>> people can understand and appreciate I
>> expect you will find a few people who will
>> join you.
>
> The people who come to this project will do so
> from within. It will be the same drive which
> moves me, which moves them -- an indwelling
> of His Holy Spirit, and a change, a desire to do
> the things we do, in whatever industry we're in,
> for Him.
>
> Some (most) will never be able to understand
> the drive there, nor see the value/gain in giving
> and sharing knowledge, sacrificing intellectual
> property rights so our fellow man might be able
> to create a better thing upon our prior work,
> etc.

I'm not questioning the drive.  I'm asking how this effort is being led. 
  I don't see where the decisions are coming from.  For a project like 
this to succeed there has to be a basis from which the technical 
decisions are made.  If it is all by the seat of your pants, that's 
fine, but it will be hard to find others who are willing to follow your 
lead.

I think I understand this better now.  Thanks.

-- 

Rick

I have had long-term goals:

    (1) Visual FreePro and its compiler framework
    (2) Exodus 32-bit x86-based operating system
    (3) Armodus 32-bit ARM-based OS.
    (4) Exodus 64-bit.
    (5) Armodus 64-bit

And various other related system and user apps.

I have only discovered in the last month that I
have some natural understanding of hardware.
Until this Oppie-1 project, I had always viewed
hardware as some distant and nebulous thing.
But now that I see I have this knowledge and
ability, much to my surprise I might add, I am
moving in this way.

It's absolutely floored me to be honest. When I
began to learn Verilog, and write things, and it
all made sense, I literally walked around my
house in disbelief saying out loud, "No way!"

And in the weeks since I've looled at how the
various hardware interconnects, and it's like this
veil has been lifted and I can see the hardware
ends.

The path before me is now a combined path:

    (1) LibSF 386-x40 comprised of
    (2) Exodus OS,
    (3) Visual FreePro, and its general IDE supporting a C-like compiler, and
    (4) Other user apps

Best regards,
Ricl C. Hodgin

You can read my original goals here:

    http://www.visual-freepro.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

On 03/12/14 13:05, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I have had long-term goals:
> 
>     (1) Visual FreePro and its compiler framework
>     (2) Exodus 32-bit x86-based operating system
>     (3) Armodus 32-bit ARM-based OS.
>     (4) Exodus 64-bit.
>     (5) Armodus 64-bit
> 
> And various other related system and user apps.
> 
> I have only discovered in the last month that I
> have some natural understanding of hardware.
> Until this Oppie-1 project, I had always viewed
> hardware as some distant and nebulous thing.
> But now that I see I have this knowledge and
> ability, much to my surprise I might add, I am
> moving in this way.
> 
> It's absolutely floored me to be honest. When I
> began to learn Verilog, and write things, and it
> all made sense, I literally walked around my
> house in disbelief saying out loud, "No way!"
> 

Don't be so surprised - a basic understanding of digital logic is not
actually very difficult.  I was about 12 or 13 when I learned about
boolean logic, registers, ALUs and processor design.  If you are
comfortable with binary, logic operations, and assembly code (on any
cpu), then digital logic design is mostly pretty simple.

There is an "ah-ha!" moment for software programmers when they first
look at Verilog, VHDL, or other HDL's, when they realise you are mostly
describing a lot of things that happen in parallel, rather than mostly
describing a lot of things that happen serially, but you seem to have
passed that.

What is not simple, of course, is actually making something useful and
working - figuring out what you need, how to make appropriate
structures, how to manage everything, how to make the design efficient
in size and space, how to avoid races, how to fit together existing
pieces, etc.  And even when you know what you are doing here, there is
massive amounts of work involved.

I am not trying to discourage you here - I am just saying that you
shouldn't think you have some "natural aptitude" here (nor am I saying
that you /don't/ have a natural aptitude - but if you do, it is not yet
apparent).  You are a reasonably intelligent person, with good enough
mathematical skills and plenty of experience at assembly programming,
and lots of determination and motivation - I would have been very
surprised if you had /not/ got the hang of Verilog fairly quickly.

> And in the weeks since I've looled at how the
> various hardware interconnects, and it's like this
> veil has been lifted and I can see the hardware
> ends.
> 
> The path before me is now a combined path:
> 
>     (1) LibSF 386-x40 comprised of
>     (2) Exodus OS,
>     (3) Visual FreePro, and its general IDE supporting a C-like compiler, and
>     (4) Other user apps
> 
> Best regards,
> Ricl C. Hodgin
> 

David,

Jesus loves you. And I love you. Seek Him.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin