0

I'm looking for a decently beefier arduino, but from what I can tell by using google the best I can get is up to 80mhz clock speed. I need something closer to or higher than 500 with more ram, I found the Intel Edison but it runs linux, what I'm looking for is something that is bare metal like the arduino. I need the higher clock rate for faster calculations and more ram for storing vertex information for a 3D renderer. Thanks for your help everybody.

closed as too broad by jfpoilpret, Dat Ha, Chris Stratton, Mattia, KIIV Nov 6 '16 at 9:36

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Your requirement is not credible, for many reasons including the fact that what you can accomplish depends on a lot more than clock speed, and because you've ignored those factors, you can't yet actually know what your requirement is. No one looking for performance should be using Arduino paradigms. Depending on the nature of the operations you may be performing, you may want dedicated computational paths in an FPGA rather than generic ones in a stored-program computer; but either way in a real system you may need to pay as much attention to getting data in and out as to crunching it. – Chris Stratton Nov 4 '16 at 22:31
  • 2
    I need something higher than 500 - why? Please state what you are hoping to achieve with this device. – Nick Gammon Nov 4 '16 at 22:33
  • I'm writing a 3D library as a hobby project, 16mhz, 32kb sram, isn't going to keep up unfortunately. – ABOODYFJ Nov 4 '16 at 22:37
  • 1
    @ABOODYFJ Could you please explain how you arrived at >= 500 MHz? – Mikael Patel Nov 5 '16 at 0:39
  • 1
    Some people go bare metal on the Raspberry Pi. You get a 1.2 GHz, quad-core, 64-bit ARM, with 1 GB of RAM and a GPU for little more than the price of an Arduino. It's certainly more complex though. – Edgar Bonet Nov 5 '16 at 12:52
1

I would guess that the Teensy 3.6 is the beefiest Arduino available right now. It runs at 180 MHz. Now clock speed is not everything. This can be illustrated by Arduino-Scheduler and context switch time for the supported boards.

Cheers!

  • 180 MHz is only 36% of the OP demands!! – Dat Ha Nov 4 '16 at 22:57
  • @DatHa Very true. 180 is approx 36% of 500 but I could not find an available Arduino core supported board that was faster/beefier. Could you? And as I am trying to point out clock frequency does not really mean faster. There is so much more to the "game". – Mikael Patel Nov 5 '16 at 0:37
1

Adding to Mikael Patel's answer and noting the comment (from that Dat Ha) that says it only gives 36% of the power. You say it for a project for 3D graphics- 3D graphics with sensible implementations can be parallelised so you could you may use at least three (or more) Teensys to get that 500 Mhz you really want- that assuming the CPU power is mostly used for 3D -as it seems you are saying that. Generally speaking 3D graphics can usually be parallelised and which you would be doing yourself -since you are writing the library. So you could use three Teensy to do the 3d graphics in parallel and the other Teensy to do the other stuff you want.

But 180Mhz is fast enough to at least do a 3D wireframe library -with a few colours and put it on a display screen-there used to be primitive (by todays standards) 3d games on the older generation of computers that ran slower than 180mhz -so its possible.

But what does it have to using something like bare metal?-is that really an essential requirement?. If you give more details about your project I can give a more of an answer.

Personally, I wouldnt use arduino type boards for these types of problems unless there was a good reason to do so and it was a sensible idea to use such boards. To do the type of graphics that you want seem to require something like a standard PC or something near to that-if you use standard PC you can use directx to base you library on if you wanted to-to make your life easier.

  • @Dat Hair Do ---Calculator not at hand but its I precisely 36% -I think? Not a fraction more or less that 36. – Dat Han Bag Nov 5 '16 at 1:35
  • It still not clear to me what advantage you would get from using an arduino type boards (in your case) to do what you want-why not just use a cheap PC? The PC GPU hardware is specially designed for graphics. – Dat Han Bag Nov 5 '16 at 10:36
  • @Dat Ha My first idea was to use one arduino to mimic a cpu for uploading vertex data and doing simple physics calculations while the other would act as a GPU, handling the frame buffer and interacting with the screen, and yes the 500Mhz would be used for the GPU. The idea behind the project is to create the 3D library (like OpenGL, DirectX) instead of using one, a while back I created my own 3D software renderer but that runs on the PC's CPU which is not dedicated only for that one tast, using a dedicated processor would allow more freedom and faster results due to no background processes. – ABOODYFJ Nov 5 '16 at 10:39
0

I do 3D graphics on a PIC32MZ...EF based chipKIT board (WiFire). It is 200MHz, built in FPU, lots of RAM and Flash, and is Arduino compatible.

https://youtu.be/MMcD17xYcVc

Beat that, teensy...

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.