Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

neutis.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#31

Post by gh02t »

stefan_ wrote: post #20
gh02t wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not identical to the RPi 3. Raspberry Pi is using a Broadcom chip, this one is an Allwinner H5. They are similar, but at least the H5 has far better support in mainline Linux. Still Mali, though. Which I totally agree is crap. And no drivers for other display types.

We were talking about the CPUs, and these are pretty identical. Both use quad ARM Cortex A53, the H5 has 100 MHz more top clock rate and is probably manufactured in a more modern process, but real-world performance isn't going to be much different.

Performance wise they are very similar, but you mentioned upstream support. That is actually a major point of differentiation between the two.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#32

Post by stefan_ »

gh02t wrote: post #31
stefan_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were talking about the CPUs, and these are pretty identical. Both use quad ARM Cortex A53, the H5 has 100 MHz more top clock rate and is probably manufactured in a more modern process, but real-world performance isn't going to be much different.

Performance wise they are very similar, but you mentioned upstream support. That is actually a major point of differentiation between the two.

Well, yes, the Raspberry Pi has much better upstream support. The biggest obvious issue being the Mali.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#33

Post by vardump »

stefan_ wrote: post #7
dreamcompiler wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a 64-bit 4-core ARM. So I expect it to cost a little more than a Raspberry Pi.

This is the identical CPU of a Raspberry Pi 3. 512 MB of RAM with 64 bit is a pain, and that Mali GPU is a proprietary piece of shit. What's the market for a SoM for "makers and hardware startups" that has negligible upstream support. That's before you consider that they chose a SoC with considerable GPU/VPU capabilities that can only do HDMI or composite, the first you would never use in an embedded application wher…

> 512 MB of RAM with 64 bit is a pain

That's an odd statement. How are those two things related?

You can still run 32-bit binaries (including thumb-2) under 64-bit OS in 32-bit execution state -- as long as kernel is configured to use 4kB pages. So your usermode binaries don't need to be bigger.

Or you can take advantage of higher performing 64-bit mode.

(Unrelated, but my pet peeve, one thing a lot of people get wrong: 32-bit ARM (Aarch32 and most ARMv7) supports 1 TB of physical RAM and 64-bit IIRC 16 TB. Not sure where the idea 32-bit ARM could only support 4 GB comes from.)

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#34

Post by tmuir »

rubatuga wrote: post #13

I could see this costing $30, but $49 is quite a stretch. What are your main advantages over Orange Pi Zero [1] which costs $8.49? I can only see the DDR3 rated to -25 and the secure enclave. 1. http://www.orangepi.org/orangepizero/

There is also the Nano Pi Neo 2 [1]. $18 for Allwinner H5, 512MB RAM, Gigabit Ethernet.

Haven't used the Neo2 yet. But its predecessor, Nano Pi Neo is $10, has excellent Armbian support, and is on par with a RPi3.

[1] http://www.friendlyarm.com/index.php?route=product/product&p...

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#36

Post by gh02t »

stefan_ wrote: post #32
gh02t wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Performance wise they are very similar, but you mentioned upstream support. That is actually a major point of differentiation between the two.

Well, yes, the Raspberry Pi has much better upstream support. The biggest obvious issue being the Mali.

I mean upstream support in the Linux kernel. The Allwinner chip is supported by the mainline kernel, the one in the Raspberry Pi is not. To me that's a big plus in its favor.

Also in terms of support by the creators, if they're serious about the 10 year commitment then I'd say actually that is better than Raspberry Pi. Mindshare in the maker community isn't that important to someone doing serious embedded hardware development for production as long as the company behind it is solid. Which kinda sucks, I wish there was more incentive for chipmakers like Broadcom to be more open but...

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#37

Post by tmuir »

ivereninov wrote: post #22
rubatuga wrote: post #13

I could see this costing $30, but $49 is quite a stretch. What are your main advantages over Orange Pi Zero [1] which costs $8.49? I can only see the DDR3 rated to -25 and the secure enclave. 1. http://www.orangepi.org/orangepizero/

Apart from temperature range and secure chip which you already mentioned there is also a 8GB eMMC, different processor (H2->H5), more RAM, more peripherals available. Neutis is not competing with Orange Pi as the applications are different, it is meant to be a part of a product, so it has all peripherals available on board-to-board connectors.

But you are marketing this to "Makers". The Orange Pi, Raspberry Pi, and other single board computers, are maker-friendly, because of their adherence to the standard of 0.1" headers, USB or wall wart power, and a large community of users to drive support and development.

Makers largely don't care about import duties to China, or FCC certifications, or manufacturing tools, or barcodes, or Yocto, or secure enclave chips. Just give us the hardware in an easy to use, all in one form factor, with good drivers and support.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#38

Post by SlowBro »

rubatuga wrote: post #13

I could see this costing $30, but $49 is quite a stretch. What are your main advantages over Orange Pi Zero [1] which costs $8.49? I can only see the DDR3 rated to -25 and the secure enclave. 1. http://www.orangepi.org/orangepizero/

The Orange and Nano Pis are not FCC-certified, so they're not likely to be integrated into any product sold in the United States, at least legally-speaking, assuming the manufacturer doesn't want to be fined. Orange pretends to be certified[1] (the PDF is named FCCCERTIFICATION), but it's mere verification (now called Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, or SDoC), and SDoC is not the same as certification[2].

If a manufacturer were to use the on-board wireless they could be heavily fined. Certification for these boards would cost around $15k, significantly increasing the price of an integrated product.

At least FriendlyElec doesn't pretend to have gotten their boards certified.

[1] http://www.orangepi.org/download/FCCCERTIFICATION.pdf

[2] https://www.fcc.gov/general/equipment-authorization-procedur...

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#39

Post by tmuir »

SlowBro wrote: post #38
rubatuga wrote: post #13

I could see this costing $30, but $49 is quite a stretch. What are your main advantages over Orange Pi Zero [1] which costs $8.49? I can only see the DDR3 rated to -25 and the secure enclave. 1. http://www.orangepi.org/orangepizero/

The Orange and Nano Pis are not FCC-certified, so they're not likely to be integrated into any product sold in the United States, at least legally-speaking, assuming the manufacturer doesn't want to be fined. Orange pretends to be certified[1] (the PDF is named FCCCERTIFICATION), but it's mere verification (now called Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, or SDoC), and SDoC is not the same as certification[2]. If a m…

I can't speak to pretending or not, but at the bottom of this NanoPi/FriendlyElec page, there are very similar looking pdfs for fcc, rohs, and ce.

http://www.friendlyarm.com/index.php?route=product/product&p...

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#40

Post by gdamjan1 »

ivereninov wrote: post #28
godelmachine wrote: post #17

Would you kindly shed more light on what kind of Crypto chip are you using? What are its capabilities?

Sure! It is ATECC508A from Microchip and it does a whole lot of things. Please check out the chip description from Microchip for full list of capabilities.

That's good enough for U2F (the same chip is used in u2fzero). But not good enough for RSA.

I wonder if it can be made to work for attestation like TPM

Post reply on HN