Return to the archive index

Re: Alternitave Wearble (GB/Z80)

From: Joseph Gaffney <>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 13:24:12 -0500

At 05:10 AM 3/4/98 +0000, Mel Tsai wrote:
>>Keep in mind as well that the 4mhz is the max speed of the processor,
>>that does not mean its ever going to get to 4mhz while doing some
>>processing (in fact, it probably won't).  A 6mhz z80 in a calculator (The
>>TI-8x series) can be clocked at 2mhz.  Say you can reach 2mhz with the z80
>>in the gameboy.  Don't forget now that you'll want some I/O there, because
>>of the need of a hard drive and other such devices.  After this, what speed
>>do you think you'll reach?
>
>Ummm :)
>
>No processor switches clock rates during operation (well actually some
>do, but generally small embedded processors don't).

I was referring to the general latency of the clock speed due to
applications and physical addons slowing it down (whether it has to scan
ports to run something, etc., etc.)

>Problem though is that the complexity of these systems rises
>exponentially with processor power.  You have to guage what you want

>with how much time you're willing to spend developing.  While the NEC
>VR chips are cheap, super high performance, and use very little power,
>the simplest VR chip is a 120 pin quad flat package!  Most of the VR's
>suitible for wearables (the VR41xx series) are 180 or more pins.
>There's *no way* you can homebuild a circuit board in which this chip
>can be mounted.  You must resort to expensive board fabrication
>houses, and expect to pay $200+ just for a few prototype boards.
>Couple this with the fact that most of these 32 bit chips require 16
>or even 32 bit wide memory datapaths, which makes your board
>complexity go through the roof, unless you can find chips with large
>on-chip memories.  But even still you'll have to add RAM which rarely
>ever comes on-chip.  The PDA manufacturers can get away with using
>these big complicated chips because they included huge and expensive
>FPGA chipsets along with 4 or even 8 layer printed circuit boards,
>which allows their entire system to fit in small spaces.  Few people
>can afford these luxuries when their goal is a low cost wearable.

Unless of course some sort of deal came through =)

It has been very... prevalent... in my thinking that the production of a
low-cost (or would-be low-cost, with mass production) wearable computer
would be an intriguing idea for NEC.. perhaps interesting enough to put it
into production, bringing a nice and cheap wearable to the general market
(possibly bringing the intent of wearable systems to the forefont at the
cost of commercialist ideas for them).

- Joseph Gaffney
- 
- http://www.thethinker.com/members/gaffney/
- http://www.ArchAgency.com/

Previous Message in Thread | Next Message in Thread

From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty

Archive created with babymail