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

BeagleBone Black Wireless

beagleboard.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–114 of 114 posts

Re: BeagleBone Black Wireless

#111

Post by FullyFunctional »

bsder wrote: post #77
jwatte wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have measured performance for my compute heavy use case. Four cores with Neon are way higher performance. (The Rpi1 was slower, but the BBBW is up against the Pi3, and previous ones against Pi2.)

> I have measured performance for my compute heavy use case. Four cores with Neon are way higher performance. Um, sure, but if that's your benchmark, you'd want an ODROID-C2 instead, no? The problem I have with the RPi3 is that it's rare that I am CPU bound (and there are better choices if I am), while I am far more often I/O bound. And the RPi I/O system (Still hanging Ethernet off the USB? Only one PWM pin? Really?…

I agree, but my anecdata: I'm _often_ IO bound (storage and network) and the ODROID-C2's eMCC & GbE blows the RPi 3 out of the water.

Re: BeagleBone Black Wireless

#112

Post by hackcasual »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #56
hackcasual wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beagleboard's come with PRUs, for which, if you need a lot of very fast GPIO, there's no substitute. I've driven 9000 LEDs at 100fps with Octoscroller

Which is admittedly very cool, for some applications - but the PRUs can't account for the huge price difference by themselves, I wouldn't think.

It's more of a case that is a niche feature, so only pricier chips include it.

Re: BeagleBone Black Wireless

#113

Post by jwatte »

bsder wrote: post #77
jwatte wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have measured performance for my compute heavy use case. Four cores with Neon are way higher performance. (The Rpi1 was slower, but the BBBW is up against the Pi3, and previous ones against Pi2.)

> I have measured performance for my compute heavy use case. Four cores with Neon are way higher performance. Um, sure, but if that's your benchmark, you'd want an ODROID-C2 instead, no? The problem I have with the RPi3 is that it's rare that I am CPU bound (and there are better choices if I am), while I am far more often I/O bound. And the RPi I/O system (Still hanging Ethernet off the USB? Only one PWM pin? Really?…

Yes, the ODROID is interesting, too. If I want raw performance, I actually want some form of the Jetson. Even adding a Teensy3 over USB or serial for the cases where I really need bit twiddling, the RPi3+Teensy3 system came out ahead for me. (Mainly, robotics control, some computer vision.) The onboard camera/GPU integration of the Pi3 is great for me, too.

And if I want absolute-lowest-price, CHIP is still where it's at, unless I can stretch as low as the ESP8266, but then we're no longer in the same category.

So, anyway, I'm not particularly excited about yet another beaglebone that's two or three times too expensive for what it is, in singles. Others have differing needs/opinions.

Re: BeagleBone Black Wireless

#114

Post by bsder »

rektide wrote: post #82
bsder wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unfortunate that they didn't take this revision opportunity to boost the RAM and switch to USB3. IMHO. Well, the RAM on the Bone is DDR3 while the RAM on the RPi3 is DDR2. I'll generally take the extra performance over an extra 512MB. With respect to USB3, USB Type-C connectors are WAY more expensive than micro-B. We're talking like more than a dollar vs less than 10 cents. And USB Type-C cables are way more e…

You've conflated USB 3.0 with Type-C. Many many people ship USB3, many of them being fairly low cost wifi routers, but yes, they use USB 3.0 Type-A connectors, the big rectangular ones. I'm also generally unconvinced the Type-C scaremongering is real. Difficulty now is high, costs are high, but it still doesn't seem as impervious a barrier as many people intone.

> Many many people ship USB3, many of them being fairly low cost wifi routers

That's fine, but most embedded things can't even do USB high speed. So why incur the cost of USB 3.0 when they can't even use USB 2.0 to the fullest?

Post reply on HN