|
how would shrinking the die do that?
They wouldn't even have to change the actual form factor of their chip to shrink the die, much less change the actual functionality
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
A physically smaller die has less room to attach IO pins; and higher density processes are much more expensive per mm^2; down to about 14nm increased transistor density allowing more parts per wafer is able to keep marginal prices for denser parts down. (Following all the additional/more complex design rules for eg 14nm vs 40nm, along with other fixed setup costs still makes smaller processes a lot more expensive if you're only making a small volume of parts though.)
One of the major drivers 10-20 years ago of Intel cramming more and more stuff into the chipset (most notably a basic GPU) was that the overall size of the die was being set by the number of IO pins it needed, and they had "free space" to put anything that didn't need much more IO into.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Also, shrinking pads and traces will generally reduce their current carrying capacity and that's usually not so good with interfaces.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
If you are contractually bound to the ESP32, then you are contractually bound to the ESP32. Case closed.
If you are free to switch to another chip, why don't you state your requirements for power consumption, on-chip functionality and maximum cost (for development kit, raw chip or whatever), and other requirements / restrictions?
I don't expect anyone around here to be able to reduce the power consumption of the ESP32, except by trivial measures such as reducing the clock frequency (if that is possible on the ESP32) or being more clever in turning of peripherals when not needed (if that is possible / relevant on the ESP32).
Knowing nothing about your functional requirements (so this may not be relevant for you): If what you need is Bluetooth, the nRF52 / nRF53 IoT SoC chips are recognized for their low power consumption. If going to another chip is an option, take a look at nRF[^]. These chips also support some older wireless technologies such as ANT and Zigbee. If what you need is 4G IoT, there is the nRF91 chip, but I believe that is a more expensive chip.
Off hand, I can't tell which technology these chips are using, but the proof of the pudding is the actual power consumption, not the nanometers. If you have the option to go to another chip, and your target is either Bluetooth or LTE, you could pick up the specifications of the nRF chips from the website for consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
We're already roped in.
The ESP32's strengths are the amount of I/O it has and the built in array of radio comms it supports.
I'm using pretty much all of that.
More importantly, we've already built our supply chain around using these chips, so even if I changed all my code and went out and bought one of the chips you mentioned, it would be a non-starter.
I'm using BLE on the ESP32 already. The BLE portion isn't taking up much juice according to my USB amp meter but esp32 itself is kind of hungry.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of questions, is it true to assume that the primary issue you have is with battery life? Does your system compute continuously or are there long periods when power could be saved by shutting down the processor to say 1µA and then restart it again when processing is required?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, my primary concern is I think they (esp the ESP32) could be much less power hungry.
In one of my commercial projects I've got an ESP32 that drives a screen, and the screen is the biggest pig, but it's continuous during a session. There are "wait screens" where I can blank out probably suspend the CPU with just enough state to bring it back if the radio and screen survive the suspend.
But my concern is more of a general one. The thing uses 60mA at idle with nothing connected except a voltage regulator and some pullups, and jumps rapidly as soon as you start computing with it. It doesn't seem like much but in practice, unless your device goes to sleep, wakes up, senses and transmits, then sleeps again (in which case 4AA batteries would last you a day) your batteries last mere hours.
The ARM Cortex-M based STM32 systems run at 400Mhz and are 40nm as well so i expect them to fare as poorly.
Lithium ION is a little better lifewise but for wearables and stuff this is just too hungry in general.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I am a curious amateur, knowing "nothing" about advanced biology. But I am curious 
I still remember the days when there was a race to be the first research institute to do a complete sequencing of human DNA. It took weeks, or maybe it was months.
Nowadays, DNA sequencing seems to be as simple as taking a breath. "Everyone" seems to do it in a snap. Covid19 RNA (it is RNA, isn't it? or is it DNA?) is obviously magnitudes below human DNA, but even human DNA sequencing seems to be a piece of cake today, to determine your ancestry, or your disposition of various diseases, or in criminal cases, or for a whole lot of other purposes.
Most of this change has come in less than twenty years. What happened? Computers haven't become that much faster! (I got the impression that they are essential as a tool.) Is the speedup in other, non-computer analysis hardware? Or have the scientists developed a completely new methodology that is a magnitude or two faster? Or are those companies offering info about ancestry or disease risk doing only a quick, partial analysis rather than a full sequencing?
To phrase it differently: If we twenty years ago had had all the knowledge that we have today about methodologies, would the hardware of the day be capable of sequencing the human genome in a many hours as they did use months, or are the methods of today fully dependent on recent hardware development? (I assume that computer hardware development is only part of it!)
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: It took weeks, or maybe it was months years.
FTFY.trønderen wrote: it is RNA, isn't it? or is it DNA?
It can be either one, depends on the virus group. RNA is only used for replication, which is what most viruses are targetting.trønderen wrote: What happened?
It is like learning how to ride a bike, once you know how it goes you can ride all bikes, not only yours.
trønderen wrote: would the hardware of the day be capable of sequencing the human genome in a many hours as they did use months
No.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: it is RNA, isn't it? or is it DNA?
It's a single-stranded RNA virus.
|
|
|
|
|
Covid is an RNA virus
Back in the day (staring in 1990) the Human Genome Project was labouring to sequence the human genome. However, the technologies they (and others) developed advanced, and in 1998 Craig Venter started a parallel private effort. Depending on what "complete" counts as, he actually published the sequence first. I've seen estimates of the Human Genome Project as costing USD2.7B, but now you can get a full sequence done for < USD1000.
So, yeah. If we had today's technology then, stuff would have completed faster. Something short (~30,000 bases) like Covid doesn't take them long anymore - they had the full sequence last January, and they know exactly where the variants differ as well.
Ancestry, 23andMe, and the others aren't doing full sequencing though. They're doing a partial method (as you guessed) that involves trying to find specific differences. (They chop up the DNA at specific sequence types, then separate out the remaining chains to find differences).
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Nowadays, DNA sequencing seems to be as simple as taking a breath. "Everyone" seems to do it in a snap. Covid19 RNA (it is RNA, isn't it? or is it DNA?) is obviously magnitudes below human DNA, but even human DNA sequencing seems to be a piece of cake today, to determine your ancestry, or your disposition of various diseases, or in criminal cases, or for a whole lot of other purposes.
Google "RNA vs DNA".
trønderen wrote: Most of this change has come in less than twenty years. What happened? Computers haven't become that much faster! (I got the impression that they are essential as a tool.) Is the speedup in other, non-computer analysis hardware? Or have the scientists developed a completely new methodology that is a magnitude or two faster? Or are those companies offering info about ancestry or disease risk doing only a quick, partial analysis rather than a full sequencing?
Computers did increase, as did our knowledge of biology.
trønderen wrote: To phrase it differently: If we twenty years ago had had all the knowledge that we have today about methodologies, would the hardware of the day be capable of sequencing the human genome in a many hours as they did use months, or are the methods of today fully dependent on recent hardware development? (I assume that computer hardware development is only part of it!)
Twenty years ago is 2001. I'm from 1977. We'd have dealt with it another way; stricter lockdowns, quarantines for entire cities.
Let me paint you a (realistic) picture; I'll be vaccinated this month, but the effectiveness of the vaccine is 70%. Nothing like measles. I won't be allowed outside during lockdown, vaccinated or not.
For every human it infects, millions of copies (and evolution). If it infects someone vaccinated in those 30%, it may become immune to the vaccine. So after my shot, I still need to stay indoors.
I am old enough to remember when every new vaccine was celebrated. We seen the effects of polio. Suddenly, half of our country refuses vaccines without any good reason. This "minor disease" as called here, may turn hostile soon, if we don't stop the amount of people it infects.
We need stop spread. We need to stop idiots.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: We need to stop idiots.
That's what people from both sides of the issue say.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine the same with polio. Look up what the disease did, and how vaccines killed it.
There's no discussion here.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I say we wear masks forever, and stay in lockdown forever.
|
|
|
|
|
So, you trouble with history? We could and we won't. Because in time of polio, everyone wanted vaccine.
Slacker007 wrote: I say we wear masks forever, and stay in lockdown forever.
That's what I expect; if people do not want vaccine nor stick to the rules, the virus will spread, and with spreading it will copy a million times in every new body. And thus, it will evolve faster.
And with part of us vaccinated it will evolve beyond that. If just part of us vaccinated and lot infected, it will mutate beyond that.
There once was a time where we celebrated new vaccines because they save lives. Congratulations and kudo's to you.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
 you bore me Eddy. You bore me to 
|
|
|
|
|
Then quit reading and responding to what he writes.
|
|
|
|
|
In steps the playground referee. 
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: you bore me Eddy. You bore me to
Quit dreaming, I'll never bore into sh*t.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Even back when we had a soapbox, when he found himself shyte-faced, his answer was just his often-used hiding place of being dismissive. To a varying (but considerable) degrees, it's the cult/conspiracy mentality.
Anything that contradicts the dogma is party to the conspiracy and thus dismissed - eyes wired closed. Or, for some who think they've not been totally indoctrinated, they just try to ridicule what they don't agree with, then believe their own evasive position as being some equivalence of proof.
If you look not only in the US, but throughout the world, COVID isn't the only deadly disease going around - the likely more dangerous one is in heads (and I don't mean a head-cold).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Even back when we had a soapbox, when he found himself shyte-faced, his answer was just his often-used hiding place of being dismissive. To a varying (but considerable) degrees, it's the cult/conspiracy mentality.
I've been part of too many of those, causing the closing of said soapbox. I don't want to see the Lounge go.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: If you look not only in the US, but throughout the world, COVID isn't the only deadly disease going around - the likely more dangerous one is in heads (and I don't mean a head-cold).
There was a time when we celebrated each new vaccine, but this one is met with resistance. Mostly due to "experts" on FaceBook and Twitter.
The new more dangerous one you mention, is prolly ignorance.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Imagine the same with polio.
Polio and covid cannot be compared this way.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: There's no discussion here.
Yes, I am seeing that pattern with you.
My only point was that you call people who think Covid is not as bad as you do idiots, and they call you an idiot. Possibly both sides are right.
|
|
|
|
|
20212 wrote: Possibly both sides are right.
Sorry, Spanky.
Deadly diseases do not behave like Schroedinger's Cat
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Deadly diseases
Such as not understanding a post you are responding to?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
