On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:19:23AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > > >> whereas the EOMA initiative is at the complete opposite end of the > >> spectrum. and products based around the EOMA standards, although > >> there is a cost overhead of e.g. around $6 in parts for EOMA-68, there > >> is a whopping great saving of 30 to 40% to the customer when compared > >> to other products *if* your end-user is prepared to swap / share CPU > >> Cards between two products. if they share the CPU Card between three > >> products then the saving to them is even greater. > > > > > > In theory, Moore's Law says that buys you... 9 months? > > and 6 months in to that 9 months you bring out the next CPU Card, and > the next, and the next, and the next, and the next.
In case people haven't noticed yet: Moore's law is over, at least in terms of financial incentive. So that means high-volume products like ARM SoCs will be stuck at ~10 nm for a long while. This gives architecture time to catch up, however, so it might be a good thing. > there's a hell of a lot of history already behind the EOMA > initiatives. i'm running this discussion down, btw - the point's been > made, and i'm inviting linux kernel developers who may not have been > aware of the initiative to be involved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130508082556.gw26...@leitl.org
