I just bought myself a new laptop(check link for details) and i was wondering how could i know if my laptop is compatible with running DDR5 ram, instead of DDR3. I have 2 slots and i really want to upgrade to DDR5. I have been searching on google for motherboard specs, but i am a little new to this stuff. So, can anyone please tell me if my laptop can run DDR5? Thanks a lot.
http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/NX.MP4AA.007
There is no DDR5 available, maybe you are confusing with GDDR5 which is embedded on a discrete graphic card ?
The listed laptop is compatible with DDR3L (low voltage)
Related
When playing certain games or viewing certain websites, my computer will suddenly crash and my monitor will display "HDMI no signal" the computer cannot be restarted without unplugging it from the wall. Upon viewing the crash report I see event 10016 related to permissions I think, but I'm a moron. Any and all solutions are greatly appreciated. Relevant components are as follows:
Graphics Card: RTX 2080
Power supply: EVGA supernova 1000g2
Storage: Sandisk 500Gb
CPU: Ryzen 2700X
Monitor: Both HP EliteDisplay E222 and another HP monitor
Since you are not supplying your q with the crash report, I can only suspect your problem is rooted to either one of these:
Bug in the accompanying display driver and/or directX installation
Proposed solution : try and obtain the latest version of your RTX 2080, do a 2D and 3D test run afterwards to ensure everythings proper
Fan or cooling related issue. Some games might force your hardwares to work harder, especially over continuous use. Check your fan and coolings to ensure they are moving and cooling as fast as they should. Also install a temp monitoring software if you need to be extra sure.
Hope those help m8
I want to setup 3D acceleration in kvm. I have asked google but all I could find is that I have to passthru my PCI card what seems to make the grafics unavailable for the host. I do not really get this since than, I would need 2 cards to avoid a black screen on the host? Is that correct? If so I will go straight back to virtual box...
virtio vga supports 3d acceleration, but so far only linux drivers exist, so it depends on what you want to run inside the guest ...
I too have struggled with slow GPUs in the virtio domains. I ended up using lubuntu or xubuntu to get better performance. It is not possible by now as far as I know.
I read recently about the new GPU virtualization for new Kernels here: http://news.softpedia.com/news/linux-kernel-4-10-officially-released-with-virtual-gpu-support-many-features-513077.shtml . It looks it is a work in progress.
I found this article https://medium.com/#calerogers/gpu-virtualization-with-kvm-qemu-63ca98a6a172 just now. You may give it a try and let us know if that worked for you.
I am using Dfu-util to flash firmware onto an NXP device. It all works fine on my Windows 7 64 bit desktop, but on my Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop, running W10 32 bit(rather well, as it happens), the firmware download takes about ten times as long. Any pointers or suggestions would be much appreciated.
Answering here two years later because I found a possible solution, at least applicable in my case.
Connecting the board directly to the PC resulted in extremely slow DFU speed. However, adding a simple hub (4-port USB 2.0, unpowered) in between immediately made DFU download much faster.
It may be possible that the difference between the two computers was due to one using an internal hub or different USB topology that had the same effect.
As to why this helped, I have no clue, but it did and is perfectly reproducible in my case.
I tried using "Kinect for Windows" on my Mac. Environment set-up seems to have gone well, but something seems being wrong. When I start some samples such as
OpenNI-Bin-Dev-MacOSX-v1.5.4.0/Samples/Bin/x64-Release/Sample-NiSimpleViewer
or others, the sample application start and seems working quite well at the beginning but after a few seconds (10 to 20 seconds), the move seen in screen of the application halts and never work again. It seems that the application get to be unable to fetch data from Kinect from certain point where some seconds passed.
I don't know whether the libraries or their dependency, or Kinect's hardware itself is going wrong (as for hardware, invisibly broken or something), and I really want to know how to detect which is it.
Could anybody tell me how can I fix the issue please?
My environment is shown below:
Mac OS X v10.7.4 (MacBook Air, core i5 1.6Ghz, 4GB of memory)
Xcode 4.4.1
Kinect for Windows
OpenNI-Bin-Dev-MacOSX-v1.5.4.0
Sensor-Bin-MacOSX-v5.1.2.1
I followed instruction here about libusb: http://openkinect.org/wiki/Getting_Started#Homebrew
and when I try using libfreenect(I know it's separate from OpenNI+SensorKinect), its sample applications say "Number of devices found: 0", which makes no sense to me since I certainly connected my Kinect to MBA...)
Unless you're booting to Windows forget about Kinect for Windows.
Regarding libfreenect and OpenNI in most cases you'll use one or the other, so think of what functionalities you need.
If it's basic RGB+Depth image (and possibly motor and accelerometer ) access libfreenect is your choice.
If you need RGB+Depth image and skeleton tracking and (hand) gestures (but no motor, accelerometer access) use OpenNI. Note that if you use the unstable(dev) versions, you should use Avin's SensorKinect Driver.
Easiest thing to do a nice clean install of OpenNI.
Also, if it helps, you can a creative coding framework like Processing or OpenFrameworks.
For Processing I recommend SimpleOpenNI
For OpenFrameworks you can use ofxKinect which ties to libfreenect or ofxOpenNI. Download the OpenFrameworks packaged on the FutureTheatre Kinect Workshop wiki as it includes both addons and some really nice examples.
When you are connecting the Kinect device to the machine, have you provided external power to it? The device will appear connected to a computer by USB only power but will not be able to tranfer data as it needs the external power supply.
Also what Kinect sensor are you using? If it is a new Kinect device (designed for Windows) they may have a different device signature which may cause the OpenNI drivers to play-up. I'm not a 100% on this one, but I've only ever tried OpenNI with an XBox 360 sensor.
In the last two months I've worked as a simple application using a computer vision library(OpenCV).
I wish to run that application directly from the webcam without the need of an OS. I'm curious to know if that my application can be burned into a chip in order to not have the OS to run it.
Ofcorse the process can be expensive, but I'm just curious. Do you have any links about that?
ps: the application is written in C.
I'd use something bigger than a PIC, for example a small 32 bit ARM processor.
Yes. It is theoretically possible to port your app to PIC chips.
But...
There are C compilers for the PIC chip, however, due to the limitations of a microcontroller, you might find that the compiler, and the microcontroller itself is far too limited for computer vision work, especially if your initial implementation of the app was done on a full-blown PC:
You'll only have integer math available to you, in most cases, if not all (can't quote me on that, but our devs at work don't have floating point math for their PIC apps and it causes many foul words to emanate from their cubes). Either that, or you'll need to hook to an external math coprocessor.
You'll have to figure out how to get the PIC chip to talk USB to the camera. I know this is possible, but it will require additional hardware, and R&D time.
If you need strict timing control,
you might even have to program the
app in assembler.
You'd have to port portions of OpenCV to the PIC chip, if it hasn't been already. My guess is not.
If your'e not already familiar with microcontroller programming, you'll need some time to get up to speed on the differences between desktop PC programming and microcontroller programming, and you'll have to gain some experience in that. This may not be an issue for you.
Basically, it would probably be best to re-write the whole program from scratch given a PIC chip constraint. Good thing is though, you've done a lot of design work already. It would mainly be hardware/porting work.
OR...
You could try using a small embedded x86 single-board PC, perhaps in the PC/104 form factor, with your OS/app on a CF card. It's a real bone fide PC, you just add your software. Good thing is, you probably wouldn't have to re-write your app, unless it had ridiculous memory footprint. Embedded PC vendors are starting to ship boards based on 1 GHz Intel Atoms, and if you needed more help you could perhaps hook a daughterboard onto the PC-104 bus. You'll work around all of the limitations listed above, as your using an equivalent platform to the PC you developed your app on. And it has USB ports! If you do a thorough cost analysis and if your'e cool with a larger form factor, you might find it to be cheaper/quicker to use a system based on a SBC than rolling a solution using PIC chips/microcontrollers.
A quick search of PC-104 on Google would reveal many vendors of SBCs.
OR...
And this would be really cheap - just get a off-the-shelf cheap Netbook, overwrite the OEM OS, and run the code on there. Hackish, but cheap, and really easy - your hardware issues would be resolved within a week.
Just some ideas.
I think you'll find this might grow into pretty large project.
It's obviously possible to implement a stand-alone hardware solution to do something like this. Off the top of my head, Rabbit's solutions might get you to the finish-line faster. But you might be able to find some home-grown Beagle Board or Gumstix projects as well.
Two Google links I wanted to emphasize:
Rabbit: "Camera Interface Application Kit"
Gumstix: "Connecting a CMOS camera to a Gumstix Connex motherboard"
I would second Nate's recommendation to take a look at Rabbit's core modules.
Also, GHIElectronics has a product called the Embedded Master that runs .Net MicroFramework and has USB host/device capabilities built-in as well as a rich library that is a subset of the .Net framework. It runs on an Arm processor and is fairly inexpensive (> $85). Though not nearly as cheap as a single PIC chip it does come with a lot of glue logic pre-built onto the module.
CMUCam
I think you should have a look at the CMUcam project, which offers affordable hardware and an image processing library which runs on their hardware.