In the same vein: it's outright bizarre that the HN community in general has a lot of difficulty handling sarcasm and irony, proceeding to knee-jerkingly downvote.
I'm confused: after all, on which bank of the Seine are the snowflakes?
> Can’t one recompile the same exact Ubuntu packages you already have on your system with optimal flags for your specific hardware?
Well, in principle yes. But you'd also need to figure out what you mean by 'optimal' flags? The flags might differ between different packages, and not all packages will be compatible with all the flags.
Even worse, in the example in the article they got most of their speedup out of moving to a different allocator, and that's not necessarily compatible with all packages (nor an improvement for all packages).
However, if you still want to do all these things, then Gentoo Linux is the distribution for you. It supports this tinkering directly and you'll have a much happier time than trying to bend Ubuntu to your will.
What difference would the extra 16KiB or whatever instead of the 2 RISC-V cores make? If 520KB is far too little for you, you're likely better off adding a 8 MiB PSRAM chip.
SRAM is big in gate count. typically 6 transistors per bit.
The i386, a 32 bit chip already dragging around a couple of generations of legacy architecture came in at 275,000. I would imagine the Hazard3 would be quite a bit more efficient in transistor usage due to architecture.
16K is 16384(bytes) *8(bits per byte) *6(transistors per bit) = 786, 432
> But doesn't the ESP32-S3-WROOM have some large on-chip RAM?
They use the same PSRAM chips with relatively bad latency you complained about higher up in the thread. There are boards like those from Pimoroni that even have them on the PCB from the factory.
> For the Pico, say, something in the line of the approach taken by many smartphone SoCs that package memory and processor together.
What for? This only saves you PCB space, the latency is not going to be affected by this. There probably won't be enough people ordering those to justify the additional inventory overhead of (at least) 2 more skews.
The ESP32-S3 has 512 KB of SRAM, and the RP2350 has 520 KB of SRAM. The ESP32-S3-WROOM does indeed come in configurations with additional PSRAM, but that would be comparing apples and pears. The WROOM is an entire module complete with program flash, PSRAM, crystal oscillator etc. It comes in a much larger footprint than the actual ESP32-S3, and it is entirely conceivable that one could create a similar module with the same amount of PSRAM using the RP2350.
Furthermore, the added RAM in both cases is indeed PSRAM. That being said, the ESP32-S3 supports octal PSRAM, not just quad PSRAM, which does make a difference for the throughput.
And go cellphone style: Package-on-Package or Multi-Chip Module of some sort.
Wouldn't the massive increase in capabilities from adding 8MB-16MB of closely-integrated, fast RAM far outweigh the modest price increase for many applications that are currently memory-constrained on the Pico?
It's like, when put into question, they start to cry and can't even articulate a proper response addressing the arguments presented to them - then gang up and downvote.
Ah, if you're primarily observing that, then it's probably that many users see any feed back or back and forth discussion as flaming (or just find arguing upsetting in general -- some people are quite sensitive,) and as such down vote even if they are not experts in that field, they're most likely going by the tone of the comments and punishing who they see as the agitator.
I am unable to down vote. All of my replies in this thread have been a somewhat neutral tone ... just here to help.
With all your flailing of arms, whaling away at perhaps an imperfect system -- my reply to you has been at my cost as well - demonstrating if any thing the point I was attempting to make.
In regard to your other replies to me, perceived agitator was to mean specifically those users in the thread who have made some critique valid or not. As for crying, no not exactly. Some people are particularly sensitive to online arguments or hot debates. I've long been a moderator at a few different forums, and found myself quite surprised by the last people I'd expect messaging me over hurt feelings or inaction on my part. I'd also point out that in this feed plenty of members would feel they're enforcing a flame free area - they don't necessarily have any side or bias.
Well I would say a lot of the down voting you're observing in certain responses, most likely isn't about the topic or the which ever members down voting being invested with a strong opinion. In fact I'd guess they are not at all passionate to give a rats, they simply don't care for what they might see as rude behaviour or breaking rules or etcetera ... as an example, say this place HN, was like a library that has a big large notice at the door of one of its reading rooms asking patrons to observe a number of rules. The top of list is no ideological discussions, followed by keep talking to a minimum and if so, quietly - along with a number of other minor rules. For the most part quiet conversions in the room are tolerated even if they do get a little loud at times. However when area's conservation gets much louder others around due to previous arguments, some patrons mostly perceive the louder conservation to be something of the nature of a passionate disagreement of an ideological nature and may seek to inform staff -- while they're unsure exactly of nature of the conservation, they are fairly sure the noise level is not befitting of a quiet area -- they though might miss that one of the people they are complaining about was just a bit deaf and was merely briefly passionately explaining a really good fishing trip to an old acquaintance, it makes little difference to the outcome. The offenders are asked to leave by the staff ... obviously it might feel like some people just didn't care for fishing, but common sense should dictate that it probably wasn't about the fishing trip.
I though had earlier made the point there also surely are some sub groups with vested interests and the nature of how they vote and why is not exactly known -- trying to make sense of the way votes go at time is too hard, sometimes it is as it is. Imagine the above example, their initial conclusion it was about the fish would be right if in fact a large group of vegans or animal cruelty had taken offence that one of the fish landed they felt was mishandled.
I'm confused: after all, on which bank of the Seine are the snowflakes?
reply