mikerr
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:52 am

W. H. Heydt wrote: no evidence of "better" power handling (whatever he means by that, and...better than what?)
Probably referring to a low power sleep/standby mode - or lack of it - on the pi
(I was hoping A+/B+ might rectify that - my only disappointment)
jamesh wrote:4GB???? What on earth could possibly need that much memory on a SBC?
Stop thinking of an SBC being an embedded device, and start thinking about its use as GUI device
e.g.a desktop, or tablet style use.
Suddenly 4GB isn't overly excessive.
Last edited by mikerr on Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Android app - Raspi Card Imager - download and image SD cards - No PC required !

WebPi
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:47 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK
Contact: Website

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:53 am

If you're interested in using a Pi to learn about technology used in data centres, then 4GB of RAM could be useful. For example, if you want to learn about virtualisation or Hadoop, then having more memory would help. I appreciate that this isn't a common use case for the Pi, but there are people who are interested in that kind of stuff.

And for what it's worth, instead of having two SD slots, I'd rather have two ethernet adapters (preferably gigabit, although I'm not aware of any ARM SoCs that support this). There a plenty of people using their Pi as a router/firewall/filter, and dual NICs makes sense for these types of projects.
raspberrywebserver.com - Raspberry Pi tutorials
LinuxWebServers.net - Linux Web Server tutorials and examples
pyplate.com - Python web publishing tool

fruitoftheloom
Posts: 24595
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:40 pm
Location: Delightful Dorset

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:59 am

mikerr wrote:
W. H. Heydt wrote: no evidence of "better" power handling (whatever he means by that, and...better than what?)
Probably referring to a low power sleep/standby mode - or lack of it - on the pi
(I was hoping A+/B+ might rectify that - my only disappointment)
jamesh wrote:4GB???? What on earth could possibly need that much memory on a SBC?
Stop thinking of an SBC being an embedded device, and start thinking about its use as GUI device
e.g.a desktop, or tablet style use.
Suddenly 4GB isn't overly excessive.
Yes but ARM Linux 32bit OSes need LPAE to fully address 4gb Memory, whereas ARM Linux 64bit OSes https://wiki.debian.org/Arm64Port natiely support.....

The bottom line if the changes were made as per wants, the majority of the software available would need to be re-written, bit hard on people who have invested time on projects, but heiho "just throw the baby out with the bath water"
Thinking outside the box is better than burying your head in the sand...

plugwash
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3701
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:07 pm

jamesh wrote:4GB????

What on earth could possibly need that much memory on a SBC? I think Loom is right, I'm not sure there is a SoC out there that is capable of addressing that much RAM. It would also be very expensive.

I can see a jump to 1GB being just about useful, but more than that? On an SBC? No, simply not needed. Write better code.
Theres already reasonablly affordable (expensive compared to the Pi but then most things are) arm boards with 2GB of ram. Examples include Odriod U3, Odriod XU3, wandboard quad, cubietruck.

Going to 4GB the pickings get much slimmer :(
And for what it's worth, instead of having two SD slots, I'd rather have two ethernet adapters (preferably gigabit, although I'm not aware of any ARM SoCs that support this). There a plenty of people using their Pi as a router/firewall/filter, and dual NICs makes sense for these types of projects.
Theres arm devices out there with gigabit MACs and also arm devices with PCIe, unfortunately internal bus limitations often prevent full gigabit throughput.

For example the utilite standard and pro models have dual gigabit ethernet ports, one using the built in MAC in the imx6 and one using PCIe.
fruitoftheloom wrote:
Yes a better board does exist, but it is 64bit SoC to take advantage of greater memory addressing, though will need a 64bit OS

http://www.geekbuying.com/item/Allwinne ... 32199.html
That's a 32-bit system with LPAE, not a 64-bit one.

Still it's the first affordable am board i've seen with 4GB of ram, I might have to cosnider getting one
Edit: it seems there is conflicting information, geekbuying and merrii claim it has 4GB but linux-sunxi claims it only has 2GB.

fruitoftheloom
Posts: 24595
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:40 pm
Location: Delightful Dorset

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:42 pm

plugwash wrote: http://www.geekbuying.com/item/Allwinne ... 32199.html
That's a 32-bit system with LPAE, not a 64-bit one.
That is why I have not bought a new Android Tablet or Board, I am waiting for Android / Linux AARM64 to mature.....
Thinking outside the box is better than burying your head in the sand...

mung
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:49 am

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:46 pm

Wow, I was just thinking about where these type of blue sky nextgen pi discussion threads had gone to.

I have heard that the next gen chips will be Package On Orthogonal Package sandwich chips that will allow full native cpu bus stacking.

The new POOP Sandwich will be the future of computing, almost unlimited stacking of POOP for better vector processing.

I still like the idea of SD RAID to speed access and avoid dataloss could 4 micro SD be made to work with the existing soc with some buffering chips controlled by gpio?

I don't understand why people want sata and more than 1Gb ram, usb3 and 1Gb should be more than enough.

More gpio, maybe an onboard dsp, maybe ADB, DAC, or some cheap support chips that are very easy for people to integrate for projects.

Backwards compatible ARM could be important, and power and price and size reduction.

Its fine as it is at the moment though, I hope it stays around for at least 10 years in some form unless the next gen is backward compatible.

I think what could be most useful would be if someone produced a gcc compiler that could create highly optimized code for the vc4 gpu from standard c source code. This maybe impossible, but at least raspbian could include as default some improved example code and tools for creating apps that run on the vc4 bare metal. Unless the vc4 is going to be dumped in nextgen, I don't think there is any more power efficient mobile processor available yet is there?

mung
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:49 am

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:48 pm

fruitoftheloom wrote:
plugwash wrote: http://www.geekbuying.com/item/Allwinne ... 32199.html
That's a 32-bit system with LPAE, not a 64-bit one.
That is why I have not bought a new Android Tablet or Board, I am waiting for Android / Linux AARM64 to mature.....
Don't wait for it to mature, wait for it to be out of date, then you can pick it up for cheap. :lol:

User avatar
Fidelius
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:40 pm
Location: Germany

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:38 pm

fruitoftheloom wrote:
HappySailor wrote:[..]
For a model C (or Pro) I do have my wishlist (based off a B+):
-- Dual or Quad core processors
-- 4GB of memory
-- Dual SD slots that can accept the SDXC chips.
-- Better power handling
-- Maybe a SATA port and WiFi
[..]
Bit late someone else has made a $35.00 board to save you the trouble of fantasy desirement
http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewt ... 62&t=93650
http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products ... &tab_idx=1
Could this new Odroid-C1 for its 35$ (and 44€ for EU, so far) speed up the idea for a nice Pi-II with similar features? Mr. Eben Upton mentioned a _potential_ Pi-II a certain time ago.

Are there any news on this good idea?

We really would love to have a Pi-II with an ARMv7 and 4 cores, and 1 GB RAM or so. My family is using the Pi nearly every day as a crafting and desktop machine, but my wife constantly complains that it's "rather slow" for her browsing and libre-office'ing, and so often ssh's into my desktop Linux machine. I am not so happy to see a nice Pi being demoted to a thin-client only. :-)
I have this dream of replacing the Pi with a future Pi-II silenty and observe her surprise reaction...

HappySailor
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:03 pm

Well, it is A Step Forward! 1GB of DDR is an improvement, along with a couple of of items not on the list. Thank you!
W. H. Heydt wrote:
fruitoftheloom wrote:
HappySailor wrote:I'm new to the forums for the RPi.

I have a model B and do like the little guy (XBMC for net TV, et al.)

Being a computer engineering type, I do lament the limited size and processing of the Pi's at this time.

For a model C (or Pro) I do have my wishlist (based off a B+):
-- Dual or Quad core processors
-- 4GB of memory
-- Dual SD slots that can accept the SDXC chips.
-- Better power handling
-- Maybe a SATA port and WiFi

It does sound like a lot, and would probably make the Pi look more like a Udoo.

Yes the A/B(+) models were intended only as educational tools, and I respect that. But the community is also wanting to grow and maybe it's time for a higher level platform.
Bit late someone else has made a $35.00 board to save you the trouble of fantasy desirement

http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewt ... 62&t=93650

http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products ... &tab_idx=1
Still doesn't meet Happy Sailor's wish list... Has 1GB RAM (rather than his requested 4GB), 1 microSD slot (instead of the requested two), no evidence of "better" power handling (whatever he means by that, and...better than what?), and no SATA port. Like the B+, it has 4 USB ports, so one of those can be dedicated to WiFi if anyone wants. Does appear to have an RTC, though, which is a nice feature.

Personally, I would cheerfully give up two of the cores in exchange for boosting RAM to 2GB and adding a SATA port, keeping all the rest of the specs (and price) the same. Or--alternatively--boosting the price some (to, say, $50) to get that extra RAM and the SATA port.

It will be interesting to see if Hardkernel can sustain their price or if this is an introductory loss leader. For that matter, it will be interesting to see if they can make more than their initial batch or if these are made with a sample batch of SoCs and they will--once again--be unable to purchase enough to keep their supplier happy.

fruitoftheloom
Posts: 24595
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:40 pm
Location: Delightful Dorset

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:10 pm

Fidelius wrote:
fruitoftheloom wrote:
HappySailor wrote:[..]
For a model C (or Pro) I do have my wishlist (based off a B+):
-- Dual or Quad core processors
-- 4GB of memory
-- Dual SD slots that can accept the SDXC chips.
-- Better power handling
-- Maybe a SATA port and WiFi
[..]
Bit late someone else has made a $35.00 board to save you the trouble of fantasy desirement
http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewt ... 62&t=93650
http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products ... &tab_idx=1
Could this new Odroid-C1 for its 35$ (and 44€ for EU, so far) speed up the idea for a nice Pi-II with similar features? Mr. Eben Upton mentioned a _potential_ Pi-II a certain time ago.

Are there any news on this good idea?

We really would love to have a Pi-II with an ARMv7 and 4 cores, and 1 GB RAM or so. My family is using the Pi nearly every day as a crafting and desktop machine, but my wife constantly complains that it's "rather slow" for her browsing and libre-office'ing, and so often ssh's into my desktop Linux machine. I am not so happy to see a nice Pi being demoted to a thin-client only. :-)
I have this dream of replacing the Pi with a future Pi-II silenty and observe her surprise reaction...
The Pi was never designed as a Desktop replacement, if that is why you bought it then you bought the wrong product :roll:
Thinking outside the box is better than burying your head in the sand...

User avatar
Fidelius
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:40 pm
Location: Germany

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:29 pm

fruitoftheloom wrote:The Pi was never designed as a Desktop replacement
Designed as a replacement or not, a Pi-II with the specs of, for example an Odroid-C1 (ARMv7 4x 1.5 GHz, 1 GB DDR3 RAM @800 MHz), would be a nice Desktop replacement as a side-benefit, amongst many other things.

According to tests done in the newest Odroid magazine, the Odroid-C1 is typically 4 to 8 times faster than a Pi and costs about the same. We wouldn't need more "power" than that with a Pi-II, I think. So technically speaking a Pi-II could be possible already now concerning the hardware, I think. James in the other thread was surprised how the Odroid guys could make the C1 so cheap. But if a Pi-II was a bit more expensive that wouldn't be a problem, I think.

Since Mr. Eben Upton mentioned the idea of a potential Pi-II some time ago, I'd be interested how far that idea is today.
if that is why you bought it then you bought the wrong product
I've already loved the Acorn Archimedes and so naturally I bought a Pi, too. :-)

jdb
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:57 pm

mung wrote: I have heard that the next gen chips will be Package On Orthogonal Package sandwich chips that will allow full native cpu bus stacking.

The new POOP Sandwich will be the future of computing, almost unlimited stacking of POOP for better vector processing.

Made me chuckle. 6/10.
Rockets are loud.
https://astro-pi.org

User avatar
Lob0426
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: Susanville CA.
Contact: Website

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:36 pm

+1 for the POOP design! :lol:

Seriously, too many people have lost sight of what a "PI" is about. It is an educational device by design. It is not a desktop replacement!

Even though there are areas that I would like to see "more" in and of, I have desktops, tablets, netbooks, servers and smartphones. I know some do not have these. If the RasPi becomes a desktop replacement then the family is not going to want it to be experimented with.

More memory, maybe, but not really needed. They want to teach people efficiency. The current size works well for the majority of people.

More processor, yes but not multiple cores at rediculous speeds. A move to a newer architecture definitely. Multi cores, maybe, but not a quad core! Number of cores does not always equal more performance anyway. The V7 architecture is faster without adding cores. The perfect "new" SoC for a Raspberry Pi 2 would be the VideoCore 4 and just a newer V7 core. But Broadcom is not going to burn these just for the foundation!

Better video, the VideCore 4 has all the needed performance. If they could stick with it that would be good. A lot of time has been put into the Video.

USB 3.0, nice but not needed. A better implementation of USB 2.0 inside the SoC would do more. USB relies heavily on the processor to run well. USB 3.0 would be too much for ARM SBC use (my opinion).

More GPIO, yes, definitely. Always need more. Size is the problem here.

SATA, nice but really not needed to accomplish the basic mission of the Raspberry Pi. I would like to see it, but not absolutely needed. More than most people need.

WiFi, also nice but not needed to accomplish the mission. Very easy to add and not that expensive to add on yourself.

Bluetooth, Infrared, OTG ,,,,,,,,,,, :roll:

The reason these things will not make it into the next PI are easy to figure out, PRICE is the overall reason. The foundation has put a lot of effort into reducing/keeping the price while adding features. The move to a smaller board and reducing the price of the A model was a very good thing. SIZE the foundation appears to want a small easy to handle board, not a desktop case! Adding many of the features that are wanted would increase board size drastically and that size also adds cost.

What would I like to see? A server version without any sound or video connectors at all. Only USB and Ethernet! A B- ? :lol:

Again this is my opinion!
512MB version 2.0 as WordPress Server
Motorola Lapdock with Pi2B
Modded Rev 1.0 with pin headers at USB

http://rich1.dyndns.tv/
(RS)Allied ships old stock to reward its Customers for long wait!

fruitoftheloom
Posts: 24595
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:40 pm
Location: Delightful Dorset

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:40 pm

Lob0426 wrote:+1 for the POOP design! :lol:

Seriously, too many people have lost sight of what a "PI" is about. It is an educational device by design. It is not a desktop replacement!

Even though there are areas that I would like to see "more" in and of, I have desktops, tablets, netbooks, servers and smartphones. I know some do not have these. If the RasPi becomes a desktop replacement then the family is not going to want it to be experimented with.

More memory, maybe, but not really needed. They want to teach people efficiency. The current size works well for the majority of people.

More processor, yes but not multiple cores at rediculous speeds. A move to a newer architecture definitely. Multi cores, maybe, but not a quad core! Number of cores does not always equal more performance anyway. The V7 architecture is faster without adding cores. The perfect "new" SoC for a Raspberry Pi 2 would be the VideoCore 4 and just a newer V7 core. But Broadcom is not going to burn these just for the foundation!

Better video, the VideCore 4 has all the needed performance. If they could stick with it that would be good. A lot of time has been put into the Video.

USB 3.0, nice but not needed. A better implementation of USB 2.0 inside the SoC would do more. USB relies heavily on the processor to run well. USB 3.0 would be too much for ARM SBC use (my opinion).

More GPIO, yes, definitely. Always need more. Size is the problem here.

SATA, nice but really not needed to accomplish the basic mission of the Raspberry Pi. I would like to see it, but not absolutely needed. More than most people need.

WiFi, also nice but not needed to accomplish the mission. Very easy to add and not that expensive to add on yourself.

Bluetooth, Infrared, OTG ,,,,,,,,,,, :roll:

The reason these things will not make it into the next PI are easy to figure out, PRICE is the overall reason. The foundation has put a lot of effort into reducing/keeping the price while adding features. The move to a smaller board and reducing the price of the A model was a very good thing. SIZE the foundation appears to want a small easy to handle board, not a desktop case! Adding many of the features that are wanted would increase board size drastically and that size also adds cost.

What would I like to see? A server version without any sound or video connectors at all. Only USB and Ethernet! A B- ? :lol:

Again this is my opinion!
+1 for a sensible the RPi is it what it is post

Regards Server Version, hopefully someone will manufacture a CM Base Board
Thinking outside the box is better than burying your head in the sand...

jamesh
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 27461
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:10 pm

Lob0426 wrote:+1 for the POOP design! :lol:

Seriously, too many people have lost sight of what a "PI" is about. It is an educational device by design. It is not a desktop replacement!

Even though there are areas that I would like to see "more" in and of, I have desktops, tablets, netbooks, servers and smartphones. I know some do not have these. If the RasPi becomes a desktop replacement then the family is not going to want it to be experimented with.

More memory, maybe, but not really needed. They want to teach people efficiency. The current size works well for the majority of people.

More processor, yes but not multiple cores at rediculous speeds. A move to a newer architecture definitely. Multi cores, maybe, but not a quad core! Number of cores does not always equal more performance anyway. The V7 architecture is faster without adding cores. The perfect "new" SoC for a Raspberry Pi 2 would be the VideoCore 4 and just a newer V7 core. But Broadcom is not going to burn these just for the foundation!

Better video, the VideCore 4 has all the needed performance. If they could stick with it that would be good. A lot of time has been put into the Video.

USB 3.0, nice but not needed. A better implementation of USB 2.0 inside the SoC would do more. USB relies heavily on the processor to run well. USB 3.0 would be too much for ARM SBC use (my opinion).

More GPIO, yes, definitely. Always need more. Size is the problem here.

SATA, nice but really not needed to accomplish the basic mission of the Raspberry Pi. I would like to see it, but not absolutely needed. More than most people need.

WiFi, also nice but not needed to accomplish the mission. Very easy to add and not that expensive to add on yourself.

Bluetooth, Infrared, OTG ,,,,,,,,,,, :roll:

The reason these things will not make it into the next PI are easy to figure out, PRICE is the overall reason. The foundation has put a lot of effort into reducing/keeping the price while adding features. The move to a smaller board and reducing the price of the A model was a very good thing. SIZE the foundation appears to want a small easy to handle board, not a desktop case! Adding many of the features that are wanted would increase board size drastically and that size also adds cost.

What would I like to see? A server version without any sound or video connectors at all. Only USB and Ethernet! A B- ? :lol:

Again this is my opinion!
Nice post. Nail hit firmly on the head with the word PRICE. Unless it can be made and sold for $35 (and still have margin), I'm not sure the Foundation would be interested. It also needs to be backwards compatible to avoid wasting a LOT of money already spent on optimisations etc and to enable a very smooth upgrade path.
Principal Software Engineer at Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd.
Contrary to popular belief, humorous signatures are allowed.
I've been saying "Mucho" to my Spanish friend a lot more lately. It means a lot to him.

toxibunny
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:22 pm

My prediction: the pi 2 *will* be touted as being 'able to replace a desktop/laptop PC for many users', just as the current pi is often referred to as 'also a pretty good media player'. This won't be particularly deliberately planned, it'll just be the way things will be, technology-wise...
note: I may or may not know what I'm talking about...

W. H. Heydt
Posts: 13644
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm
Location: Vallejo, CA (US)

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:39 pm

jamesh wrote:4GB????

What on earth could possibly need that much memory on a SBC? I think Loom is right, I'm not sure there is a SoC out there that is capable of addressing that much RAM. It would also be very expensive.

I can see a jump to 1GB being just about useful, but more than that? On an SBC? No, simply not needed. Write better code.
Yes and no... For the Pi, at 700MHz, 512MB is pretty much all it can reasonably use. At 1GHz (e.g. Cubieboard 2 using a dual core Allwinner A20), 1GB is reasonable. The Odroid-C1, with quad-core at 1.5GHz could probably use more than 1GB and if it had 2GB that would probably be optimal. The octa-core Allwinner A80 board with 4GB (I didn't notice the processor speed) is probably okay but moving it to 6-8GB wouldn't be a bad design choice (assuming it could handle that much and depending on clock speed). On the other hand, the A80 is a "little.BIG" design, so one might easily conclude that it is--effectively--a quad-core with delusions of grandeur, making 4GB the sweet spot.

When one moves the clock speed up and/or adds cores, more RAM is going to be needed to keep everything going effectively. It is certainly possible to throw ridiculous amounts of memory at some systems (a desktop with current OSes, core counts and clock speeds with 32+GB? Why?), but SBCs aren't at the point (yet!) to need tons of memory.

W. H. Heydt
Posts: 13644
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm
Location: Vallejo, CA (US)

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:22 pm

Lob0426 wrote: Seriously, too many people have lost sight of what a "PI" is about. It is an educational device by design. It is not a desktop replacement!
Absolutely agree, and I've told people that on occasion when they appear to think the Pi is more than it is. (It does make a *fine* terminal for connecting to a faster system, though, and I use some of them just that way.)
More memory, maybe, but not really needed. They want to teach people efficiency. The current size works well for the majority of people.
For the Pi as it stands, no. But if you have a faster system, then more memory to deal with the likely greater number of processes running, then yes, more memory.
More processor, yes but not multiple cores at rediculous speeds. A move to a newer architecture definitely. Multi cores, maybe, but not a quad core! Number of cores does not always equal more performance anyway. The V7 architecture is faster without adding cores. The perfect "new" SoC for a Raspberry Pi 2 would be the VideoCore 4 and just a newer V7 core. But Broadcom is not going to burn these just for the foundation!
V7, sure. What speed is ridiculous? 1GHZ (Cubieboards)? 1.2GHz (C120)? 1.5GHz (Odroid-C1)? I am not so sure that sticking with VC4 is--ultimately--the right choice. Granted, a lot of work has gone into squeezing better performance and more use out of it, but Broadcom has dropped work on the follow-on VC5. That bodes ill for the VC4. No die shrinks, no new products, no further development. At the same time, display resolutions keep climbing. 4K monitors are now down below "jaw dropping" prices. Apple has what they are calling a "5K" product. Cell phone and tablet screens are going well beyond 2K resolutions. People are doing 3D on 2K monitors. 8K has been talked about for a few years now. In a few years I expect to start seeing cheap, used, 4K monitors and it'd be nice not to have a future version of the Pi gasping for air when connected to one.
Better video, the VideCore 4 has all the needed performance. If they could stick with it that would be good. A lot of time has been put into the Video.
Only if there is a future for VC4. Where are you going to find a V7 chip with VC4?
USB 3.0, nice but not needed. A better implementation of USB 2.0 inside the SoC would do more. USB relies heavily on the processor to run well. USB 3.0 would be too much for ARM SBC use (my opinion).
Agreed. USB 3.0 isn't needed on an SBC. (I'm sure someone will be along in a minute with a MUST HAVE use case for it...if only to prove me wrong.)
More GPIO, yes, definitely. Always need more. Size is the problem here.
I have no doubt that the demand for GPIO is--essentially--unlimited. Fortunately, if you are in that position, there is the Compute Module.
SATA, nice but really not needed to accomplish the basic mission of the Raspberry Pi. I would like to see it, but not absolutely needed. More than most people need.
This is the point I will argue with. I think a classroom full of Pis--especially in a 3rd world country--would have a definite desire--one might almost say need--for some kind of server to support those Pis. For that, having a native HDD/SSD interface would make such a device far more useful than having to find some form of adapter to go from what the board has to what the drive needs. One could posit some other interface, since there are new ones creeping into the market for SSDs (and SSD prices are falling), but using the "trailing edge" design technique to keep prices down, SATA would be the way to go. I also note that the Cubieboards (Allwinner A10/A20) do have SATA II, and very useful it is.

I will grant that some of my wish for a SATA port is self serving. Right now, I'm using Cubieboards for the server side of a client/server setup with Pis. I would prefer to make it an all-RPF setup...even if just because community and support for Pi is better than for other boards I've looked at.
What would I like to see? A server version without any sound or video connectors at all. Only USB and Ethernet! A B- ? :lol:
Not only do I agree that a "Pi server" would be a good next step, but I've been saying so for some time. I disagree with your proposed model to the extent that a "Pi server" should have video out simply so that one doesn't *have* to run it headless. It doesn't have to be great video (though people will be disappointed if it isn't) since the use case as a server doesn't require streaming video, 3D acceleration, or other fancy graphics. I really think a SATA port should go on the "must have" list for it. The "nice to have" parts for a server are going to be (in order, I think) memory, clock speed and core count. I could see such a beast as a dual-core 1-2GB RAM running at 1.2-1.5GHz.

jamesh
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 27461
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:39 pm

W. H. Heydt wrote:
jamesh wrote:4GB????

What on earth could possibly need that much memory on a SBC? I think Loom is right, I'm not sure there is a SoC out there that is capable of addressing that much RAM. It would also be very expensive.

I can see a jump to 1GB being just about useful, but more than that? On an SBC? No, simply not needed. Write better code.
Yes and no... For the Pi, at 700MHz, 512MB is pretty much all it can reasonably use. At 1GHz (e.g. Cubieboard 2 using a dual core Allwinner A20), 1GB is reasonable. The Odroid-C1, with quad-core at 1.5GHz could probably use more than 1GB and if it had 2GB that would probably be optimal. The octa-core Allwinner A80 board with 4GB (I didn't notice the processor speed) is probably okay but moving it to 6-8GB wouldn't be a bad design choice (assuming it could handle that much and depending on clock speed). On the other hand, the A80 is a "little.BIG" design, so one might easily conclude that it is--effectively--a quad-core with delusions of grandeur, making 4GB the sweet spot.

When one moves the clock speed up and/or adds cores, more RAM is going to be needed to keep everything going effectively. It is certainly possible to throw ridiculous amounts of memory at some systems (a desktop with current OSes, core counts and clock speeds with 32+GB? Why?), but SBCs aren't at the point (yet!) to need tons of memory.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with this. I see no reason to conflate processor speed with RAM. You don't need more RAM to keep things going effectively (not for the majority of user cases). Lots of RAM is necessary in a multi user environment, lots of people logged in at the same time, but that clearly not a Pi/SBC use case. Generally, a Pi is a single user system (I don't include web serving a a multi user system as the requirements are much less per user than a genuine multi user system) which generally means much less RAM is required. Most apps rely of relatively few threads and processes, and its only when you need a lot of these do RAM requirement spiral*.

And again, it probably comes down to how well stuff is coded. We were running web servers on 1GB or less machines without too much problem.

* Some application need lots of RAM - video editing perhaps - but they are relatively few and far between, and unlikely to be SBC fodder anyway due to requirement very powerful CPU's as well. Note this is not an example of more CPU needing more RAM, just an example of applications that need both anyway.
Principal Software Engineer at Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd.
Contrary to popular belief, humorous signatures are allowed.
I've been saying "Mucho" to my Spanish friend a lot more lately. It means a lot to him.

W. H. Heydt
Posts: 13644
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm
Location: Vallejo, CA (US)

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:32 pm

jamesh wrote:
W. H. Heydt wrote:
jamesh wrote:4GB????

What on earth could possibly need that much memory on a SBC? I think Loom is right, I'm not sure there is a SoC out there that is capable of addressing that much RAM. It would also be very expensive.

I can see a jump to 1GB being just about useful, but more than that? On an SBC? No, simply not needed. Write better code.
Yes and no... For the Pi, at 700MHz, 512MB is pretty much all it can reasonably use. At 1GHz (e.g. Cubieboard 2 using a dual core Allwinner A20), 1GB is reasonable. The Odroid-C1, with quad-core at 1.5GHz could probably use more than 1GB and if it had 2GB that would probably be optimal. The octa-core Allwinner A80 board with 4GB (I didn't notice the processor speed) is probably okay but moving it to 6-8GB wouldn't be a bad design choice (assuming it could handle that much and depending on clock speed). On the other hand, the A80 is a "little.BIG" design, so one might easily conclude that it is--effectively--a quad-core with delusions of grandeur, making 4GB the sweet spot.

When one moves the clock speed up and/or adds cores, more RAM is going to be needed to keep everything going effectively. It is certainly possible to throw ridiculous amounts of memory at some systems (a desktop with current OSes, core counts and clock speeds with 32+GB? Why?), but SBCs aren't at the point (yet!) to need tons of memory.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with this. I see no reason to conflate processor speed with RAM. You don't need more RAM to keep things going effectively (not for the majority of user cases). Lots of RAM is necessary in a multi user environment, lots of people logged in at the same time, but that clearly not a Pi/SBC use case. Generally, a Pi is a single user system (I don't include web serving a a multi user system as the requirements are much less per user than a genuine multi user system) which generally means much less RAM is required. Most apps rely of relatively few threads and processes, and its only when you need a lot of these do RAM requirement spiral*.

And again, it probably comes down to how well stuff is coded. We were running web servers on 1GB or less machines without too much problem.

* Some application need lots of RAM - video editing perhaps - but they are relatively few and far between, and unlikely to be SBC fodder anyway due to requirement very powerful CPU's as well. Note this is not an example of more CPU needing more RAM, just an example of applications that need both anyway.
I'm not conflating the two, and my opinions on the subject pre-date microcomputers. Simply put, it's a matter of how long it takes to 'touch' every memory location. Thus, the faster the processor, the more "stuff" will probably be loaded onto it and the more memory it will require to prevent thrashing. Since at least some of the discussion around a "future" Pi is as a *server*, more meory would have some use. Maybe not a *lot* more, but more.

On the subject of "just how much memory can an ARM chip use?", while searching for some data relating to octa-core SBCs, I came across a reference to the Cubieboard4, aka Cubieboard8, aka CC-A80. That board uses the Allwinner A80, 8-core chip with 4 Cortex-A15 and 4 Cortex-A7 cores. The A15s run at 2GHz, the A7s at 1.3GHz. (Not sure how you'd describe the speed of the thing...which may be why it's hard to get a clock speed figure for it.) The documents state the the A80 supports up to 8GB RAM. So the arguments about 4GB support are pretty much moot.

(And, so far as I can tell, the CC-A80 does *not* have a SATA port and I don't find references to SATA in any of the data on the chip I looked at. Not sure what conclusion one can draw from that....)

User avatar
expandables
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:34 pm
Location: Neverland with Michael Jackson

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:05 pm

I am hoping that the new raspberry pi comes with a built in wifi and has a case with a power cable
By thinking like an engineer you can create a raspberry pi.
Michael Jackson enthusiast.
I got the PI model B, B+ and PI 2 model B.
When will I get the A? I don't know.

User avatar
Lob0426
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: Susanville CA.
Contact: Website

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:38 am

W.H. Heydt:
Yes some direct video capability would make the system much easier to set up! But really that could be handled by a Composite connector. Command line only really needed. Deleting a video component and only needing a processor core would likely mean a better core at a lower cost.

And I agree that a SATA would be nice, but that would probably require another chipset put it onboard, more cost. You would still need a USB/Ethernet chip (LAN9512/LAN9514). A more efficient core would make better use of the USB that is available. More cores might be nice but can the price be held down? Adding a SATA device means it is not going to fit into the pocket as easy as it does now. Anything SATA you connect to it trebles the price. Even adding a USB HDD trebles the price.

I think a $25, or so, server would go over really well. I also think it would fit in with the foundations goals, but only they can really tell us if it would. If it could run the current version of Raspbian sans the video that would be all to the better.

Example: my RasPi server makes no use of the video at all, but the video chip takes away 16MB that could be used elsewhere(and yes I know this is not an entirely true statement, the Video core handles boot and some other things I am sure).

I really do not agree with slapping four cores and 1.5GHz into the mix. I think a newer, single core, 1GHz or so, would fill the bill. I f I remember right, V7 is about 40% faster at the same speeds as the BCM2835 core). If the hardware is not there for the VC4 then a bump up is going to have to happen.
512MB version 2.0 as WordPress Server
Motorola Lapdock with Pi2B
Modded Rev 1.0 with pin headers at USB

http://rich1.dyndns.tv/
(RS)Allied ships old stock to reward its Customers for long wait!

W. H. Heydt
Posts: 13644
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm
Location: Vallejo, CA (US)

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:15 am

Lob0426 wrote:W.H. Heydt:
Yes some direct video capability would make the system much easier to set up! But really that could be handled by a Composite connector. Command line only really needed. Deleting a video component and only needing a processor core would likely mean a better core at a lower cost.

And I agree that a SATA would be nice, but that would probably require another chipset put it onboard, more cost. You would still need a USB/Ethernet chip (LAN9512/LAN9514). A more efficient core would make better use of the USB that is available. More cores might be nice but can the price be held down? Adding a SATA device means it is not going to fit into the pocket as easy as it does now. Anything SATA you connect to it trebles the price. Even adding a USB HDD trebles the price.

I think a $25, or so, server would go over really well. I also think it would fit in with the foundations goals, but only they can really tell us if it would. If it could run the current version of Raspbian sans the video that would be all to the better.

Example: my RasPi server makes no use of the video at all, but the video chip takes away 16MB that could be used elsewhere(and yes I know this is not an entirely true statement, the Video core handles boot and some other things I am sure).

I really do not agree with slapping four cores and 1.5GHz into the mix. I think a newer, single core, 1GHz or so, would fill the bill. I f I remember right, V7 is about 40% faster at the same speeds as the BCM2835 core). If the hardware is not there for the VC4 then a bump up is going to have to happen.
I could point out that I do not own even a single device that supports composite video, so only comp video output is, for me--effectively--no video at all. I agree that it is entirely possible to run a server with CLI only. (And, of course, it's possible to run a server headless.) The only issue is...do you want to? In practice, when using Cubieboards as servers, I do bring up the GUI. I do so for two reasons. The first is that I can directly monitor multiple different things, each in CLI but in their own LXterminal window. The second is that I make archival backups by burning CDs (external CD/DVD burner powered by an external USB hub). The CD burning program uses a graphical interface. Sure...I could undoubtedly find one that works from CLI, but I'd have to hunt for it. So, having enough video capability to drive an HD resolution monitor is something I value even in a server (and the Cubieboard servers have quite weak graphics compared to a Pi).

The issues around SATA, Ethernet and USB depend on what is on the chip. The Allwinner A10 and A20 certainly have SATA as features on the chip as well as having both USB controllers and an Ethernet controller. So it's not a chip design issue, it's a "find the right chip" issue.

I think it is a given that not only is the Foundation not going to have a custom chip with exactly the features they want designed, but that they're going to have to hunt around to see if they can find the features they want within the price they can pay in order to hit the final price point they want. That is going to make the effort to pick a chip one of hunting, not designing.

Now suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Broadcom happened to make a chip that had all the features of the 2835 *except* that it included 2 USB connections and an Ethernet connection, but it cost as much as the 2835 plus the 9512 LAN chip. That would--arguably--make a better Model B.

Likewise, if one lists and prioritizes the desired feature set, there are probably chips out there that meet the list, but one would have to sift through them for one that is cheap enough. Or one can wait until the price comes down (so long as one can hold out against feature creep). Given the presence on (or very, very near) the market of the Odroid-C1 ($35, 4 cores, 1.5GHz, 1GB, etc.) and the Cubieboard4 ($102, 4+4 cores, 2.0/1.3GHz, 1GB(?), etc.) it is clear that there is potential for a pretty decent server board for $35.

User avatar
Lob0426
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: Susanville CA.
Contact: Website

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:39 am

My RasPi server has been totally headless after its initial setup way over a year ago. So a server version could go completely headless as long as initial setup was from a prepared image. I also have used remote desktop to enter the server, but mostly it is easier just to SSH in and get things done! A small powerful board of that type has a lot of use in the automation/robot arenas.

Every T.V. I have supports composite video.

The ARM powered board options have expanded very well over the last couple of years. The crux of the problem is not having to throw away all the software (and firmware) work that has already been accomplished. A lot of this work was in the Video Core. The USB has also been a lot of work for them, a better implementation, than what was in the BCM2835 would be a benefit to the foundation.

If VideoCore4 is not available then that could surely cause a lot more work for them. There have been some other candidates from Broadcom that might work, like the BCM11311. Dual Cortex A9 cores at 1GHz, native Ethernet, USB, VC4. I believe it was aimed at the tablet market. Their price is not in reach at this time as far as I know.

Broadcom has probably well exceeded the life it thought it would get out of the BCM2835 due to the Raspberry Pi. Another chip might just get an extended life under a similar deal. The price point of the SoC will be a major factor in what may be next on the foundations plate!

There is just a need to "keep it real" much of what people think is needed for a RasPi is just not possible. As you stated "feature creep" is a battle to fight. Every feature added adds size and cost. A Panda Board ES has many of the features people think they want, but the price is way more than they want it to be. You can buy tablets for less than the Panda Board ES.
Panda Board ES;
dual core 1GHz
1GB memory
OTG port
two USB (actually four, two in headers) (LAN9514)
Very good video right up there with the RasPi.
HDMI
DVI-D
Ethernet
WiFi 802.11 b/g/n
Bluetooth
more GPIO
no SATA
runs Ubuntu no problem!
@
MORE THAN Double the size!
@
MORE THAN six times the cost!
I did learn a lot on this board until my Raspberry Pi finally arrived. But I have spent more time on the RasPi's than I have with it. That is because there is a whole lot more help to get me through with the Raspi than the Panda Board!

A Cubieboard2 is much cheaper than that ,but does not have all the features people think they want either!
There is a trade off of features versus price. You cannot expect the Foundation to build a desktop comparable board without the price approaching a desktop system price! There will always be another feature someone will want to sneak in. I even have tried to sneak stuff in myself. But when you set a price and carve that into a stone tablet, like the foundation has, it really makes the decisions harder on one hand but more realistic.

That price is what they believe can be afforded by a low income to average family for a board that is to educate a child. That price is what they think a school might be willing to cough up to use the RasPi in their curriculum! Not every school system is dumb enough or rich enough to buy their students iPads, like Los Angeles here in California tried to do! And an iPad is not able to be used to teach programming/hardware down to the level that a Raspberry Pi can! So that pricing is just not negotiable with the foundation!

W. H. Heydt
Posts: 13644
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm
Location: Vallejo, CA (US)

Re: RaspBerry Pi(e) Model C (imaginations & wants)

Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:35 am

In order to keep the quoted material in check, I'm going to remove material ruthlessly, especially where I have no dispute with your remarks.
Lob0426 wrote:Every T.V. I have supports composite video.
I have no doubt that that is true, but I don't own a TV. Haven't had one for the better part 15 years, so the inclusion of composite input on TVs cuts no ice with me.
The ARM powered board options have expanded very well over the last couple of years. The crux of the problem is not having to throw away all the software (and firmware) work that has already been accomplished. A lot of this work was in the Video Core. The USB has also been a lot of work for them, a better implementation, than what was in the BCM2835 would be a benefit to the foundation.
While I agree with those points, the issue remains: What is going to have VC4 in it that would be a step up from the BCM2835? Since Broadcom isn't doing further development on it (which I would take to mean no die shrinks of the GPU any more than a compatible follow on, e.g. VC5), it's going to die sooner rather than later.

*Some* of the experience of tuning the Pi software to make best use of the VC4 will probably translate to some other GPU, so that work is not "wasted", at least not completely.
There is just a need to "keep it real" much of what people think is needed for a RasPi is just not possible. As you stated "feature creep" is a battle to fight. Every feature added adds size and cost. A Panda Board ES has many of the features people think they want, but the price is way more than they want it to be. You can buy tablets for less than the Panda Board ES.
Panda Board ES;
dual core 1GHz
1GB memory
OTG port
two USB (actually four, two in headers) (LAN9514)
Very good video right up there with the RasPi.
HDMI
DVI-D
Ethernet
WiFi 802.11 b/g/n
Bluetooth
more GPIO
no SATA
runs Ubuntu no problem!
@
MORE THAN Double the size!
@
MORE THAN six times the cost!
You can get a good 80% (maybe even 90%) of that with the Odroid-C1, including "runs Ubuntu" for $35. I don't know if that price is sustainable (CF Odroid-W). I'll get back to you in a week or two about just how well it runs Ubuntu. Given the relative specs, I expect it to run pretty well.\
A Cubieboard2 is much cheaper than that ,but does not have all the features people think they want either!
There is a trade off of features versus price. You cannot expect the Foundation to build a desktop comparable board without the price approaching a desktop system price! There will always be another feature someone will want to sneak in. I even have tried to sneak stuff in myself. But when you set a price and carve that into a stone tablet, like the foundation has, it really makes the decisions harder on one hand but more realistic.
Cubie 1 runs $50. Cubie 2 more like $70. I don't consider any of the boards a "desktop comparable." My standards for a desktop machine are pretty high...but then, I've built about 10 of them over the better part of 30 years. To compare to a desktop, I'd want 3 to 4 SATA-III ports, the ability to put at least 16GB or RAM in the system, and a modern graphics card in (I'm partial to nVidia). So, no. None of the SBCs are desktop grade machines.

That said, something like the Odroid-C1 looks to be fast enough to basic, lightweight desktop type activities: Casual web browsing, reading e-mail, and such. Any SBC is going to small enough and portable enough to serve as travel machine. (Yeah...I know, that's what most people use a laptop for.)
Not every school system is dumb enough or rich enough to buy their students iPads, like Los Angeles here in California tried to do!
And--apparently--the FBI is looking into that contract.

In general, there is a push to move ARM into the racked server space. That effort is probably going to generate chips with a lot more of the features one associates with "general purpose computer" than one associates with "smartphone" or "tablet". Some of that will probably creep down into the space the Pi will grow towards. I may not live long enough to see very much of it happen. (I'm already older--by a few months--than my father was when he died.)

Return to “General discussion”