How many DSPs are REALLY required to run SDK?

bob4u · Post by **bob4u** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:03 pm

Creamware says 14-15... don't know if it's a technical issue or commercial...
I've got 6 DSP: does anyone know if I'll be able to run it?

Bob

snoopy4ever · Post by **snoopy4ever** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:02 am

I understand they say 15DSP cards are needed to run SDK.
But what I really hope is that we all could SOME DAY put our hands on it

.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:35 pm

So you would need a Scope/Pro card to run the DK or only 15+ chips (cascaded pulsars i.e.)?

sjukdom · Post by **sjukdom** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:49 am

hello,

What i understood is that there is no 'technical' need to have 15 DSPs to run SDK, and that having 15 DSPs on several cards would not permit to run SDK.
But as there are still no information on CW website...

sebastien

Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:36 pm

I heard that the software access a certain chip above chip 8 on the board to run smoothly. but also it could be commercial. But as I knew from the past all Scope DP were on the 15 DSP cards and none were on a smaller card or a combo of smaller cards.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:30 pm

(Deleted message)

[ This Message was edited by: Shayne White on 2004-09-16 19:51 ]

Hujib · Post by **Hujib** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:01 pm

Even the Scope Pro only has 14 chips from what i can tell. Is there another card not listed their site with more? Or do you simply have to have 15+ chips overall.. by using 2 or 3 cards?

On 2004-09-12 20:35, voidar wrote:
So you would need a Scope/Pro card to run the DK or only 15+ chips (cascaded pulsars i.e.)?

Any help here? Does a 15+ dsp card exist? or can SDK be run on a total of 15+ dsps across multiple cards? ie 1 X Scope Home + 2 X Scope Project?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:44 pm

On 2004-11-27 16:01, Hujib wrote:
... Does a 15+ dsp card exist? ...

in fact it does, I've recently seen a pic of a 30 DSP monster for telecommunication apps - but of course it's not by CWA and doesn't run SFP

the 15 DSP card requirement IS a commercial decision intended to fire Pro card sales - no more, no less.
it's a kind of give and take process.
You are asked to buy a certain card - in exchange you get the ability to program SHARC DSPs without assembly knowledge AND without the Visual DSP kit by Analog Devices.
I don't remember the exact price, but no less than 3k Euro for the software alone

And to put this in the proper context, let's take the Minimax as an example. Given you know the algorithms for filters and oscillators and you're a DSP beginner: expect (at least!) one year fulltime work (40 hours/week) with VisualDSP, seriously

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-11-27 20:46 ]

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:46 am

I'm not sure how much I would call it programming. It's a lot closer to circuit design/digital electronics, working exclusively with signals. Nice thing tho, is that a 16-24-32 bit signal only takes a single wire, as opposed to real-life electronics

.

There's a few programming constructs (if, conditional stuff,) but it's a long range even from assembler. It's not just a bunch signal processing processors, it's a whole signal processing environement.

It's way fun

Hujib · Post by **Hujib** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:42 am

Thanks for the answers!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:32 am

On 2004-11-28 01:46, symbiote wrote:
I'm not sure how much I would call it programming. ...

in fact it is called programming - 'meta programming' to be precise

Simplyfied the graphical top layer of DP represents a procedural/data layer which itself encapsulates the actual machine code for the DSPs. As you've noticed - a pretty sophisticated system, which makes one or the other flaw tolerable (imho).

I remember a customer (math teacher) in the late 80s who used the same approach (a demo version of National Instruments' LabView) in his courses to teach math fundamentals with great success

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-11-28 07:32 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:38 am

On 2004-11-28 07:08, stardust wrote:
...The diffrence between same DSP, same board and another board in sample accuracy is quite drastic...

in that context a mixed board setup would make even more sense in final testing, since the target device is supposed to run on any configuration...

cheers, Tom

geoffd99 · Post by **geoffd99** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:55 am

I think there *was* a 15 dsp card, the current Pro is 14 dsp. US dealers were selling the 15 dsp one recently via Ebay, if anyone is interested.
I have a programming background (from Cobol to Javascript and AS) but am a bit wary of this SDK. Apart from the expense of replacing my multi card set up with a Pro card. Does anyone have any manuals to read up on, there is so little info on the CW site...
Thanks

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:48 am

the Pro card IS 15 chips - but only 14 are available for actual processing cause one is needed as a shepherd for the flock

CWA probably made the 'from 15 to 14' change to be in accordance with the number of chips in the DSP meter. There were frequent complaints like '... I bought a 15 chip card and now one is missing in DSP meter - is it broken ???'
Now they have '... I bought a 14 chip card but I got one extra...'

from all I've read (humble 2 Pulsar Ones user) everyone who changed from a multi to single card setup was amazed how much smoother the system operated

afaik there isn't much programming going on in SDK. It's a visual representation of structure and dataflow - you cannot do those tricks from 'regular' languages like including a certain piece of assembler for some bit shifting and masking.
As you know high level tools are usually a bit strange on low level stuff...

Alfonso is a true master in matching an algorithm to what's available in the visual representation - if you study his examples in Mod2 and Mod3 you'll quickly get the idea what the (true) challenge is about.

Guessing from midi implementation in Modular (and anywhere else in SFP) this is either the most neglected or the weakest link of the chain. It could be that some basic DSP extensions (those 'impossible' custom made atoms) are urgently needed in the midi domain - but I have not enough insight to be sure.

Of course there is NO literature, as you'll have to sign a pretty tight agreement for the SDK anyway...

cheers, Tom

Nikko · Post by **Nikko** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:49 am

The SDK can work even on a Luna card. There is no limits.

The limit is just the size of your projet itself.

The SDK does not use more DSP than the SFP, most work is done from modules that does not uses any DSP at all.