feature article
Subscribe Now

Pocari Sweat

How Much Better Does “Better” Have To Be?

Let’s say you’re shopping for a new car. (Congratulations.) You head down to your town’s Auto Row and start browsing all the dealerships. There’s the Ford dealer; next door is the Toyota dealer. Across the street you see the BMW dealer, the Chevy dealer, the Kia/Hyundai dealer, and so on. They all make fine cars, and you spend some time at each place, kicking the tires and slamming the doors.

Then, down at the very end of the street, you notice something different. There, under the overpass, is a man living in a cardboard box, holding up a hand-made sign that says, “Dmitiri’s Cars.” He gestures you over.

Curious, but also slightly repelled, you come closer. His eyes brighten and he leans closer – a bit too close, perhaps – and tells you about an amazing new car that he and his friends have been developing. “It gets ten times better gas mileage than these things,” he says, gesturing to the better-known brands you’ve just been perusing. “Ten times!”

Seeing no such car nearby, you ask if you can take a test drive. Or maybe just see the car? To get an idea of what it looks like? “No,” says Dmitri, spitting into his handkerchief. “Production is behind schedule. We have no models to show. We have good simulation, though.” Leading you aside, he lifts the cover off a decrepit PlayStation, revealing some very nonstandard-looking wires, ROMs, and hardware hacks. “Here,” he says, thrusting a controller into your hands. “Take virtual test drive.”

As promised, the simulated car seems to get 10x better gas mileage than all the conventional cars you’ve just been evaluating. The PlayStation’s virtual gas gauge shows the imitation tank nearly full, and after hundreds of miles of pretend driving, it’s barely moved. Miraculous.

You starting thinking that this might be a genuine alternative to the “normal” cars up the road – cars that now start looking distinctly antiquated and old-school. This is the future, you decide. Maybe this Dmitri guy is really on to something.

“I make you good price, too,” Dmitri promises. “And fuel… eh… shouldn’t be problem.”

Sorry, what? What’s the deal with fuel? Why would he bother to say it’s not a problem?

“Ah, that side-effect of technical breakthrough,” Dmitri explains with a smile. “New car doesn’t use gasoline. This car runs on Pocari Sweat. No problem. We make deals with third-party suppliers real soon.” Until then, he explains, you’ll have to get all of your Pocari Sweat fuel directly through Dmitri, in the cardboard box under the overpass.

So, is this a deal-breaker for you? How much risk are you willing to take in exchange for a quantum leap in fuel-efficiency? On the one hand, Dmitri’s unusual vehicle seems to offer incredible benefits, at least in simulation. You’ll be miles ahead of your friends and neighbors in terms of efficiency, cost savings, and green credentials. Sure, the nuisance of buying special fuel from a single source might be an irritation, but no progress without pain, right? The trailblazers always have to put up with a bit of inconvenience. The Mayflower, the Conestoga wagons, and the Apollo 11 capsule probably weren’t very comfortable, either.

On the other hand, all those mainstream cars arrayed along Auto Row are so safe… so reliable… so well-engineered. They’re backed by huge multinational corporations with global dealer networks, experienced mechanics, and plentiful spare parts. And they use normal fuel that you can buy anywhere, at competitive prices. Your parents probably had a car just like that one over there, and when your neighbor brought home that new model from that company over there it looked so shiny in the driveway…

That’s the kind of dilemma facing microprocessor users, engineers, and programmers today. Do you go with the safe choice, or should you take a leap of faith and try something bold? The safe choices depend on your particular industry, product plans, budget, experience, and geography, but they probably include names like Intel, Microchip, Qualcomm, ARM, or Freescale. Like the mainstream automakers grouped along Auto Row, they all offer competitive, yet oddly similar, products. The differences are increasingly delegated to the details. All the basic stuff is solid. There isn’t a lemon in the lot.

But over on the horizon underneath that virtual overpass are a number of microprocessor startup companies developing completely new, and sometimes strange, new architectures. Some promise 10x better integer performance than the other guys. Some yield better power-efficiency (at least, in simulation). Some run circles around standard CPUs, DSPs, or FPGAs. Some might even do all of these.

What they have in common, however, is a complete dearth of software. You can’t develop a radically new processor and still have it run old x86, ARM, or 8051 code. (Well, you can, but it severely restricts your design freedom and generally defeats the purpose of a new architecture.) So you’ve got a classic chicken-and-egg problem: There’s no software for the new processor because it’s too radical and has zero market acceptance, but you can’t get traction in the market because there’s no software for it. What’s a genius/processor architect/entrepreneur to do?

Historically, what you did was spends millions of dollars subsidizing (read: bribing) third-party software developers to support your new CPU. Then, after about five years, you give up and go broke. That’s how it’s worked for the past 20 years or so. Time after time, processor companies spent huge sums developing a new architecture, and then they spent even huger sums trying to kick-start a software base for it. And we’re not talking just garage-bound startups, either. Intel, Freescale, DEC, HP, and many other big firms all saw their new CPU family trees cut off at the roots. Anybody want a compiler for an 88000? How about M-Core, i860, Clipper, Transputer, Itanium, or Prism? Designing a new processor is the easy part. Convincing people to write software for it is hard. Very hard, indeed.

So, as a designer, how much risk are you willing to take? How much better does a new, better, faster CPU have to be before it’s worth the effort to switch? The glib answer is that a 10x improvement is necessary before most engineers would be willing to jettison their old CPU family and start over with a new one. Yet we have examples that disprove that notion, both positive and negative. Plenty of designers have switched CPUs for far less than a 10x improvement. Such order-of-magnitude changes are exceedingly rare; if we all waited for 10x improvements in performance or power-efficiency, we’d never change processors at all. Conversely, those rare examples of processors that have delivered 10x improvements often languish, unable to find enough takers. Clearly there’s something more at work here than just the magic motion of the decimal point.

What will you tell Dmitri? 

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Nov 25, 2020
It constantly amazes me how there are always multiple ways of doing things. The problem is that sometimes it'€™s hard to decide which option is best....
Nov 25, 2020
[From the last episode: We looked at what it takes to generate data that can be used to train machine-learning .] We take a break from learning how IoT technology works for one of our occasional posts on how IoT technology is used. In this case, we look at trucking fleet mana...
Nov 25, 2020
It might seem simple, but database units and accuracy directly relate to the artwork generated, and it is possible to misunderstand the artwork format as it relates to the board setup. Thirty years... [[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community sit...
Nov 23, 2020
Readers of the Samtec blog know we are always talking about next-gen speed. Current channels rates are running at 56 Gbps PAM4. However, system designers are starting to look at 112 Gbps PAM4 data rates. Intuition would say that bleeding edge data rates like 112 Gbps PAM4 onl...

featured video

Product Update: Broad Portfolio of DesignWare IP for Mobile SoCs

Sponsored by Synopsys

Get the latest update on DesignWare IP® for mobile SoCs, including MIPI C-PHY/D-PHY, USB 3.1, and UFS, which provide the necessary throughput, bandwidth, and efficiency for today’s advanced mobile SoCs.

Click here for more information about DesignWare IP for 5G Mobile

featured paper

Top 9 design questions about digital isolators

Sponsored by Texas Instruments

Looking for more information about digital isolators? We’re here to help. Based on TI E2E™ support forum feedback, we compiled a list of the most frequently asked questions about digital isolator design challenges. This article covers questions such as, “What is the logic state of a digital isolator with no input signal?”, and “Can you leave unused channel pins on a digital isolator floating?”

Click here to download the whitepaper

Featured Chalk Talk

MCU32 Graphics Overview

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and Microchip

Graphical interfaces add a whole new dimension to embedded designs. But, designing a full-blown graphics interface is a major challenge for most embedded systems designers. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton and Kurt Parker from Microchip Technology explain how you can add a modern graphics user interface to your next embedded design without a big learning curve.

Click here for more information about Microchip Technology MPLAB® X Integrated Development Environment