On Mon, 8 May 2017 09:42:36 +0200 "mike.valk@gmail.com" mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:

2017-05-07 22:26 GMT+02:00 doark@mail.com:

...

I apologize for DOS'ing the list, I can only get online about once a week.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:58:57 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:

...

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:47 PM, mike.valk@gmail.com mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

...

...

...

I think/hope FPGA's are more efficient for specific tasks then CPU/GPU's

you wouldn't give a general-purpose task to an FPGA, and you wouldn't give a specialist task for which they're not suited to a CPU, GPU _or_ an FPGA: you'd give it to a custom piece of silicon.

I always thought that FPGA's were good for prototyping or small fast tasks... But that's just how I learned about them.

Don't think of what you were thought. Think of what you can do which has not been thought.

The world outside the box is bigger than the on inside the box ;-)

Don't I know :)

Linux Linux +-------+ Linux | | Linux |WINDOWZ| Linux | | Linux +-------+ Linux Linux Linux

...

...

in the case where you have something that falls outside of the custom silicon (a newer CODEC for example) then yes, an FPGA would *possibly* help... if and only if you have enough bandwidth.

video is RIDICULOUSLY bandwidth-hungry. 1920x1080 @ 60fps 32bpp is... an insane data-rate. it's 470 MEGABYTES per second. that's what the framebuffer has to handle, so you not only have to have the HDMI (or other video) PHY capable of handling that but the CODEC hardware has to be able to *write* - simultaneously - on the exact same memory bus.

<snip> Your number seemed off to me so I did the math: 1920*1080*60*4 == 497,664,000 You're off by almost 30 MiB.

497,664,000 ~= 498 MB (Units of 1000) 497,664,000 ~= 475 MiB (Units of 1024)

<snip>

\me embarrassed.

Sincerely, David