Given that:
SSD’s are now [high end] mainstream
Two+ cores are not hard to come across
24+ Inch monitors are plentiful
Dual Video Outputs are the norm.
64-Bit OS’s complement very cheap memory
Can I ask two questions to hardware enthused developers [not the gamers!]
What high-end hardware item could you not develop without - [what is your hardware crutch]?
What should a baseline [no frills] dev machine look like and what basic specs should it have to ensure that any dev can still be productive?
Note: It might be worth mentioning what platform and dev-env your base line is for?
The most important hardware update (and most underrated) is the monitor.
If you're coding 8+ hours a day don't hesitate on costs and get a nice high end 24" at least, or even a pair of them.
Absolute must have is a good monitor which is easy on the eyes, afterall, you stare at it all day. I go with the 24" Samsung (forget model). I used to go with two monitors but prefer the one wide screen now. You need to be able to get docs and code on the same screen.
Secondly is a good chair and desk (sorry not very technical).
Followed lastly by plenty of RAM (2Gb minimum). Once you get over any thrashing due to paging you are fine. Anything with a dual core had enough processing power.
This is entirely dependent upon what you are developing for. Take your target system requirements, and double them and use that as your minimum specs for the dev machines. That may seem odd, but it is about the point I've found that I've needed at least of when developing various projects.
As others have mentioned the importance of getting good monitors, keyboard, and chairs is underrated. If you are going to spend a lot of time at this PC, those are very important.
RAM is cheap, and you'll likely never have enough. If you are running 32bit Windows, max it out at 4GB of RAM. If you are using another OS that supports more than 4GB of ram (Linux, or 64bit Windows for example), start at 8GB minimum, and if you are working on multimedia projects be ready to upgrade from there.
Best bang for the buck on CPUs seems to be Quad cores right now, so I would say that at least a quad core (2.4Ghz or so) should be the minimum. You may not see much difference going up beyond there, until you get until dual quad core, which is a large price jump.
Find a reliable hard drive or two. Reliability and speed are going to be more important than size. Personally I currently go for a pair of 640GB western digital drives in all machines I build.
24 inch or larger monitor
Baseline dev machine would be a 15 inch MacBook Pro with 4GB of RAM. (For web development)
A pair of the fastest hard drives avaílable. I never recognized how much difference separate and fast System and Data drives can make.
(And please, none of those slow SSDs that you usually get nowadays in <$2000 Laptops - if you really want to hop on the SSD train, get a proper one, otherwise you could as well use a 32 GB SDHC Card)
There's been a study on the optimum size of computer monitors by the Utah University
Wall street journal article. Not surprising is that bigger monitors will boost the speed of work. Surprising is that there seems to be an optimum size of 26". There's no explanation why though.
I am not a developer, but do sit at the computer all day.
For me the must have is a desk that is a good height or easily adjusted, I prefer dual monitors, a 26" and a second wide screen that can turn sideways to view documents full lenght without the need for a lot of scrolling, a computer with dual core(prefer 4) and at east 4gb of ram(I tend to do a lot of vm work), and as stated above, a good chair that has lumbar support and will allow me to lean back when I am reading or pondering a situation. The last one is specific for me since I have glasses and tend to hear high frequencies, I prefer to have incandescent lighting with a slightly warm spectrum. I can hear a fluorescent ballast above someone playing loud speakers. I also find I get less glare and I can focus my eyes for longer periods of time with incandescent.
Ram, lots and lots of ram. Ram compensates for many performance bottlenecks.
But do make sure you keep an eye on the memory usage of whatever you're building. When you're building a 60 MB footprint app on a system with 2 gigs of developer tools loaded at run-time, it's easy to lose that footprint in the noise, even when it doubles.
Don't bother shelling out for a high-end cpu. The cpu is the most overpowered component in modern systems. A standard cheap dual-core should be more than enough. Compiles tend to be disk-bound, not cpu bound, so that money is better invested in a faster drive.
Dell Outlet sells 30" LCD monitors for about $800.00.
That is a good place to start.
Besides that, invest time into tweaking your OS to your needs and automate as much as possible.
It's like I keep telling people, "I'll upgrade to the latest Mac when it somehow manages to help me run more Terminal windows and Text Editors." Until then, you're better off saving the money for a new machine and investing it into a decent monitor and keyboard.
It depends on the project.
For large imaging application like medical imaging applications, You may require: large monitors(we have to view the images properly and in detail), powerful graphics, lots of RAM and a good processor(imaging applications usually need lots of power).
I'm going to echo most people on the large monitors part, and you can always make good use of a pair.
Second to that is a good keyboard. What that mean varies depending on which school of keyboard design you subscribe to. I'm with the ergonomic camp.
Following that is 2Gb+ of RAM, and a recent desktop CPU (anything released in the past 2-3 years really).
As has been previously said, large monitors are essential. These days is not that expensive to have 2 hooked up to a machine. At work I'm lucky enough to have 3 hooked up to one PC and it make a huge amount of difference to how I work.
A decent keyboard and mouse are essential. For the last 10 or so years I've always taken my own mouse and keyboard to work as you typically end up with whatever comes from the PC manufacturer. I use a Microsoft ergonomic keyboard and it's very hard to find these in the workplace, or to get your employer to stump up for one, but I've never worked anywhere where the employer has an issue with taking your own in.
High-end hardware I cannot do without:
Kinesis countoured ergonomic keyboard ($300)
Fast twin SATA drives, striped for speed ($150)
Affordable luxuries I could do without:
Dell 30" widescreen monitor ($900)
Twin Velociraptor hard drives ($600)
Related
my question is : how can build single board computer like Raspberry Pi for run OS ?
user ARM micro processor and debian arm os , can use USB and etc.
like raspberry pi and other single board computer
i search but find nothing for help me !!! :(
The reason you can find nothing is probably because it is a specialist task undertaken by companies with appropriate resources in terms of expertise, equipment, tools and money.
High-end microprocessors capable of running an OS such as Linux use high-pin-density surface mount packages such as BGA or TQFP, these (especially BGA) require specialist equipment to manufacture and cannot reliably or realistically be assembled by hand. The pin count and density necessitates the use of multi-layer boards, these again require specialist manufacture.
What you would have to do if you wanted your own board, is to design your board, source the components, and then have it manufactured by a contract electronics assembly house. Short runs and one-off's will cost you may times that of just buying a COTS development or application board. It is only cost-effective if you are ultimately manufacturing a product that will sell in high volumes. It is only these volumes that make the RPi so inexpensive (and until recently Chinese manufacture).
Even if you designed and had your own board built, that in itself requires specialist knowledge and skill. The bus speeds on such processors require very specific layout to maintain signal integrity and timing and to avoid EMC problems. The cost of suitable schematic capture and board layout software might also be prohibitive, no doubt there are some reasonably capable open source tools - but you will have to find one that generates output your manufacturer can use to set-up their machinery.
Some lower-end 8 bit microcontrollers with low pin count are suitable for hand soldering or even DIP socketing, using a bread-board or prototyping board, but that is not what you are after.
[Further thoughts added 14 Sep 2012]
This is probably only worth doing if one or more of the following are true:
Your aim is to gain experience in board design, manufacture and bring-up as an academic or career development exercise and you have the necessary financial resources.
You envisage high production volumes where the economies of scale make it less expensive than a COTS board.
You have product requirements for specific features or form-factor not supported by COTS boards.
You have restricted product requirements where a custom board tailored to those and having no redundant features might, in sufficient volumes be cost-effective.
Note that COTS boards come in two types: Application modules intended for integration in a larger system or product, and development boards that tend to have a wide range of peripherals, switches, indicators and connectivity options and often a prototyping area for your own use.
I know this is an old question, but I've been looking into the same thing, possibly for different reasons, and it now comes up at the top of a google search providing more reasons not to ask or even look into it than it provides answers.
For an overview of what it takes to build a linux running board from scratch this link is incredibly useful:
http://hforsten.com/making-embedded-linux-computer.html
It details:
The bare minimum you need in terms of hardware ( ARM processor, NAND flash etc )
The complexities of getting a board designed
The process of programming the new chip on the board to include bootloaders and then pointing them to a linux kernel for the chip to boot.
Whether the OP wishes to pursue every or just some of these challenges, it is useful to know what the challenges are.
And these won't be all of them, adding displays, graphics and other hardware and interfaces is not covered, but this is a start.
Single board computers(SBC) are expected to take more load than normal hobby board and so it has slightly complicated structure in terms of PCB and components. You should be ready to work with BGA packages. Almost all of processors in SBCs are BGA (no DIP/QAFP). Here is the best blogpost that I recently came across. Its very nicely designed and fabricated board running Linux on ARM processor. Author has really done a great job at designing as well as documenting the process. I hope it helps you to understand both hardware and software side of SBCs.
A lot of answers are discouraging. But, I would say you can do it, as I have done it already with imx233. Its not easy, its not a weekend project. My project link is MyIMX233.
It took me about 4-5months
It didn't cost me much, a small fine tip soldering iron is what I used.
The hard part is learning to design PCB.
Next task would be to find a PCB manufacturer with good enough precision, and prototyping price.
Next task would be to source components.
You may not get it right, I got the PCB right by my 3rd iteration. After that I was able to repeatedly produce 3 more boards all of which worked fine.
PCB Design - I used opensource KiCAD. You need to take care in doing impedance matching between RAM and processor buses, and some other high speed buses. I managed to do it in 2 layer board with 5mil/5mil trace space.
Component Sourcing - I got imx233 LQFP once via mouser, and once via element14.
RAM - 64MB tssop.
Soldering - I can say its easy to mess up here, but key is patience. And one caution don't use frying pan and solder past to do reflow soldering. I literally fried my first 2 processors like this. Even hot air soldering by a mobile repair shop was also not good enough.
Boot loading image - I didn't take much chance here, just went with Archlinux image by olimex.
If you want to skip the trouble of circuit designing between RAM & processor, skip imx233 and go for Allwinner V3S. In 2017/2018 this would be easiest approach.
Bottom line is I am a software engineer by profession, and if I can do it, then you can do it.
Why not using an FPGA board?
Something with Zynq like the Zybo board or from Altera like the DE0-Nano SoCKit.
There you already have the ARM core, memory, etc... plus the possibility to add the logic you miss.
This might seem weird, but I'm interesting in creating an electric heater out of my computer, that is program an application, that heats up my PC, and I need some help.
I currently made an application, that runs infinite loops on the GPU (using a little shader), and on the CPU cores, however I'm interesting in getting the ram going too, as well as the several output ports, so.. About the ram heating, just allocate, and start randomly accessing and writing using all 8 cores?
And what about triggering CD-ROM, floppy etc, how do I do this?
How about heater with a purpose? Just run World Community Grid, create tons of heat while making your computer do valuable computations for science. It runs the processors wide open, is stable, and isn't just wasting cycles.
Have a look at How to stress test a computer If your interested in making your own try searching for open source stress test software that you could modify to your liking.
Use Furmark together with LinX/Prime95. Max out your settings. Make sure you have a strong enough PSU.
There`s a torture test option for CPU & RAM in Prime95 that looks like what you want. As for the GPU, there is Furmark which achieves the same kind of stress.
The heat from the other components will likely be not relevant (unless you have something really specific like a physx card) if you stress enough your cpu and gpu imho.
I have an embedded app that needs to do a lot of writing to a flash disk (or other). We cannot use a hard disk due to the environment. This is an industrial system subject to vibration and explosive fuel vapour.
The trouble is, flash has a lifecycle of around 100000 write cycles. Ample for your digital camera. Wears out after a year in our scenario.
Any alternatives that people have found work for them?
I was thinking of using FRAM but it's been done before here and it's slow and small.
As Nils says, commercial compact flash cards, and drive replacements (NAND) have wear levelling.
If you are using cheap onboard (NOR) flash you might have to do this yourself.
The best way is some sort of ring buffer where you are only appending data and then overwriting a full drive. Remember flash can only erase a full block (page) but can then append individual bytes to existing data in that page.
Also can you buffer a page in RAM and then write once or do you have to have individual bytes committed at all times?
Most app sheets for embedded processors will have examples of this.
You really need to provide much more information:
how much capacity do you need?
what costs are acceptable?
what physical form factor do you need?
what lifetime do you want?
If your storage needs aren't particularly huge and you can deal with the cost, There are battery-backed SRAM parts (up to at least 2 Megabytes per part) that are as fast as RAM (that's what they are) and have no limit on number of writes. But they cost a lot more than flash.
You could also get a drive with a SATA interface that's populated with DRAM.
This post referes to using embedded linux. Not sure if this is what you want.
I have a not to differnt system, but for medical use. We use a NOR flash for all parts that have low update frequency and NAND flash for the rest. I would recoment using UBI/UBIFS for the top layer om the MTD disk. UBI/UBIFS takes care of all the underlying problems for you. If you then design your system to have a lot larger physical flash than you need. Example: You need 100MB and then design your HW with 1GB flash. Then the data can be shuffeld around by UBI without any interaction from systems above.
UBIFS documentation
UBI documentation
As Michael Burr pointed out, we need more info. (Please answer his questions.)
I have an additional question: What kind of interface is this? PATA? SATA? USB?
As others have pointed out, any decent Flash Drive will provide some kind of wear leveling. Look for this in the datasheet for the device. Many vendors will boast about their wear-leveling technique.
You mention 100000 cycles. This seems pretty low to me. Most "industrial grade" flash drives can do a lot more than that (millions). Make sure you aren't using a bargain-basement device. A good flash drive will usually include an equation or calculator tool you can use to figure out the expected lifespan of the device.
(I can say from personal experience that some brands of flash drives hold up a lot better than others, particularly the "industrial" ones. Our drives go through some pretty brutal usage scenarios.)
The other thing that can help a lot is capacity. The higher capacity of flash drive, the more room the wear-leveling algorithm has to work with, which means a longer lifespan.
The other thing you can look at doing is software techniques to minimize the wearing of the flash components. Do you have a pagefile/swapfile? Maybe you don't need it. If you are creating/deleting lots of temporary files, move this to a RAM disk. Remember, it is erasure/reprogramming cycles that usually wears out a flash cell, so reducing those operations will usually help.
Use SD cards that have a built-in wear leveling controller. That way the write cycles get distributed over all the flash blocks and you get a very long life out of your flash.
I was thinking of using FRAM but it's
been done before here and it's slow
and small.
Compare with nvSRAM; that may provide the performance you need.
I have used a Compact Flash card in a embedded system with great success. It has a onboard controller that does all the thinking for you. Not all Compact Flash controllers are equal so get one that is a recent design and was intended to be used as a hard drive replacement as they have better wear levelling algorithms.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Is a gaming machine better for software development?
NO.
CPU
For software development, you need lots of cores. For gaming, you need fast but not necessarily many cores. This is slowly changing as newer games are being written to take advantage of multicore CPUs, but the general case is that most gaming machines focus on raw CPU power. For example, in my case, I'm an RoR developer, and during development I run: my editor, mongrel, solr, postgresql, and memcached. Most of the time I also have an open browser, a PDF editor, and iTunes.
RAM
Most games will be OK with 2-3GB of RAM.
For software development, especially web development - if you will be running multiple servers - you'll want at least 4GB, or even 8GB of RAM.
GPU
Top-of-the-line graphics cards for gaming can cost $500 or more. For software development, you can get away with the cheapest GPU you can get. The only aspect of the video card you'll want to concern yourself with is the capability to handle multiple large monitors.
It will actually be helpful if your development machine is so crippled (gaming-wise) that you can't play the games you like to play on that machine. No distractions! :)
I would say some aspects are the same between gaming machines and development machines, like large disks, a lot of memory, etc. So in that respect yes, a gaming machine would fit better than a low end desktop.
On the other hand, gaming machines tend to be tuned towards raw performance instead of robustness. A development machine often does not need a state of the art graphics card, nor does it want a RAID-0 to spead up the disk. If it crashes one disk you lose all your work, so RAID-1 would be much better. Same holds for memory, ECC (or what its called nowadays) is a bit slower but adds robustness.
One gotcha with powerful development machines is that they do not represent the non-functional requirements as to execution environment. If you are not aware of this enough your software will run slow on a "normal" machine because it ran great on your supercomputer :-) One take on this is that development machines should always be a tad slower than the target machines, but this cuts into your development time. A better solution is to have slower machines in the test environment and a few slower machines in the development lab.
Some attributes of gaming machines can help developers, like having a good deal of memory, or a quad core processor (so you can, respectively, run VMs without hassle, and compile faster).
But a fast GPU won't do you much good, so there's no point in spending much money on it. Unless you plan on developing or playing games, of course.
Summing up: if you plan on using the PC for fun, get a reasonable GPU. If you don't, skip it and keep the rest just like you would. You won't regret it.
If you want to develop games, sure. I should know, I have experience on both.
Unless you're programming something to do with graphics / game related, not necessarily. The video card is going to be underused otherwise. On the other hand gaming machines tend towards the high end making them ideal for many programming tasks.
I think so. I think the performance required for gaming will greatly help developers. Only overkill would be graphics, unless you use big rendering software, in which case RAM, graphics is a must.
Good CPU, Lots of fast RAM, and a fast HD will do you lots of good.
What you'll need for software development is usually a machine with ample RAM, ample HDD space (and a fast HDD or set of HDDs to boot), a fast multi-core processor (very important if you're working with compiled languages, especially the likes of C++ which take a long time to compile compared to Java or C#) and preferably the ability to drive multiple monitors. For the latter, it's a case of the more the merrier as screen real estate is one of those things that you can never have enough of.
While a lot of this does indeed sound like the spec for a gaming machine due to its raw number crunching ability, the main difference is likely to be the graphics hardware. You don't need something that can render x million polygons per second on a single monitor if you're trying to drive 3x 24" monitors as 2D displays. In fact you probably don't want a usually rather noisy gamer spec video card that only shines when rendering 3D; you're more likely to get more out of a "pro" graphics card that can drive 4 monitors instead.
So yes, I'd think the spec is quite similar and there is a lot of overlap between the two but in the end a developer spec machine is not the same as a gaming rig.
A gaming machine without the fancy video card, I think that's more suitable for a programmer. (you can use the video card money to add more RAM for example)
Gaming machines are great for everything except your wallet ;-)
Programming WPF Shader Effects is one of those particular tasks where a gaming machine can actually allow you to do more while not working in game-development. Also, GPGPU work may benefit from fast memory transfer and fast GPU.
I want to get into multi core programming (not language specific) and wondered what hardware could be recommended for exploring this field.
My aim is to upgrade my existing desktop.
If at all possible, I would suggest getting a dual-socket machine, preferably with quad-core chips. You can certainly get a single-socket machine, but dual-socket would let you start seeing some of the effects of NUMA memory that are going to be exacerbated as the core counts get higher and higher.
Why do you care? There are two huge problems facing multi-core developers right now:
The programming model Parallel programming is hard, and there is (currently) no getting around this. A quad-core system will let you start playing around with real concurrency and all of the popular paradigms (threads, UPC, MPI, OpenMP, etc).
Memory Whenever you start having multiple threads, there is going to be contention for resources, and the memory wall is growing larger and larger. A recent article at arstechnica outlines some (very preliminary) research at Sandia that shows just how bad this might become if current trends continue. Multicore machines are going to have to keep everything fed, and this will require that people be intimately familiar with their memory system. Dual-socket adds NUMA to the mix (at least on AMD machines), which should get you started down this difficult road.
If you're interested in more info on performance inconsistencies with multi-socket machines, you might also check out this technical report on the subject.
Also, others have suggested getting a system with a CUDA-capable GPU, which I think is also a great way to get into multithreaded programming. It's lower level than the stuff I mentioned above, but throw one of those on your machine if you can. The new Portland Group compilers have provisional support for optimizing loops with CUDA, so you could play around with your GPU even if you don't want to learn CUDA yourself.
Quad-core, because it'll permit you to do problems where the number of concurrent processes is > 2, which often non-trivializes problems.
I would also, for sheer geek squee, pick up a nice NVidia card and use the CUDA API. If you have the bucks, there's a stand-alone CUDA workstation that plugs into your main computer via a cable and an expansion slot.
It depends what you want to do.
If you want to learn the basics of multithreaded programming, then you can do that on your existing single-core PC. (If you have 2 threads, then the OS will switch between them on a single-core PC. Then when you move to a dual-core PC they should automatically run in parallel on separate cores, for a 2x speedup). This has the advantage of being free! The disadvantages are that you won't see a speedup (in fact a parallel implementation is probably slightly slower due to overheads), and that buggy code has a slightly higher chance of working.
However, although you can learn multithreaded programming on a single-core box, a dual-core (or even HyperThreading) CPU would be a great help.
If you want to really stress-test the code you're writing, then as "blue tuxedo" says, you should go for as many cores as you can easily afford, and if possible get hyperthreading too.
If you want to learn about algorithms for running on graphics cards - which is a very different area to x86 multicore - then get CUDA and buy a normal nVidia graphics card that supports it.
I'd recommend at least a quad-core processor.
You could try tinkering with CUDA. It's free, not that hard to use and will run on any recent NVIDIA card.
Alternatively, you could get a PlayStation 3 and the Linux SDK and work out how to program a Cell processor. Note that the next cheapest option for Cell BE development is an order of magnitude more expensive than a PS3.
Finally, any modern motherboard that will take a Core Quad or quad-core Opteron (get a good one from Asus or some other reputable manufacturer) will let you experiment with a multi-core PC system for a reasonable sum of money.
The difficult thing with multithreaded/core programming is that it opens a whole new can of worms. The bugs you'll be faced with are usually not the one you're used to. Race conditions can remain dormant for ages until they bite and your mainstream language compiler won't assist you in any way. You'll get random data and/or crashes that only happen once a day/week/month/year, usually under the most mysterious conditions...
One things remains true fortunately : the higher the concurrency exhibited by a computer, the more race conditions you'll unveil.
So if you're serious about multithreaded/core programming, then go for as many cpu cores as possible. Keep in mind that neither hyperthreading nor SMT allow for the level of concurrency that multiple cores provide.
I would agree that, depending on what you ultimately want to do, you can probably get by with just your current single-core system. Multi-core programming is basically multi-threaded programming, and you can certainly do that on a single-core chip.
When I was a student, one of our projects was to build a thread-safe implementation the malloc library for C. Even on a single core processor, that was more than enough to cure me of my desire to get into multi-threaded programming. I would try something small like that before you start thinking about spending lots of money.
I agree with the others where I would upgrade to a quad-core processor. I am also a BIG FAN of ASUS Motherboards (the P5Q Pro is excellent for Core2Quad and Core2Duo processors)!
The draw for multi-core programming is that you have more resources to get things done faster. If you are serious about multi-core programming, then I would absolutely get a quad-core processor. I don't believe that you should get the new i7 architecture from Intel to take advantage of multi-core processing because anything written to take advantage of the Core2Duo or Core2Quad will just run better on the newer architecture.
If you are going to dabble in multi-core programming, then I would get a good Core2Duo processor. Remember, it's not just how many cores you have, but also how FAST the cores are to process the jobs. My Core2Duo running at 4GHz routinely completes jobs faster than my Core2Quad running at 2.4GHz even with a multi-core program.
Let me know if this helps!
JFV