I found your naming suggestion funny and laced with a sarcasm that I thought you deserved to express about the naming and marketing appeal to the drones. Well played! I think I even splurted a bit of the morning tea!
Okay, I'm relieved!
I thought you were actually invoking the Moderator Monkey on me, at first, but you were reposting the message to spread it around. I get it now.
Okay, so the world at large is dazzled by multi-core. But that world is fickle and will tire of this buzzword.
Since 'the product to be named' has features unique even in the multi-core world........... extend the name to
Multi-core with = = = = =
Such as "multi-core with high-velocity i/o aribitration"
Such a phrase would cause the reader to pause and then want to hear more. Isn't that really want you want rather than to be merely in the same bin as the rest of the crowd?
I'd be happy if you named the new product, "Fat Lady". It would make me smile, but Parallax Corp. would likely be avoided by the corporate world for fear that somewhere at sometime this might be offensive to somebody. (So but I like irreverant non-sequiturs.)
Just Nthing Bill's suggestion to market the P+ to general audiences as "8 32-bit cores with NNNK shared RAM and 496 general purpose registers each, with support for high-speed code execution in the register space." That will make it a lot more understandable to people who are starting from a single vector memory perpsective and trying to wrap their heads around how you use more than one core. With Hubexec it's even an accurate description of how you'd probably use the chip.
Perhaps the PII should not be advertised as a "Propeller" chip at all.
"Propeller" is that funny little device with no native program space.
Maybe the PII should have a totally different name.
As much as I like the Propeller name, and the imagery that Parallax used with it (the cogs, hub, props, the beanie and such) you are right. People that have already heard about that 'strange propeller chip Parallax has' may not even give this one a look assuming it is just as strange.
This chip, and its tool set, will be much more relatable to the typical engineer/programmer. It needs a clean start.
The P1 was fun, flippant, and hip. Not part of that 'old school' the other chips went to.
The P16X32 needs to be the serious, flexible, get it done work horse. It can have flair and mystique but where the P1 was Popeye it needs to be Bond, James Bond cool.
Maybe the PII should have a totally different name.
Yes. Just some suggestions to continue the brainstorming...
MegaPro (Pro either Processor or Propeller) If we could squeeze 1MB into it would match the first particle in the name too
HexaDec (Hexadeca = 16)
TurboProp (but it resembles too much the Prepeller)
"16 parallel 32-bit micro-controllers on a single chip with shared access to 512Kb of memory and 64 Smart I/O Pins."
Which ushers in a whole new family of devices...
Macro-controllers
or
Multi-controllers
Once you are in a new device family that you founded, you can have any catchy development name that can leak out: Phoenix, etc.
I'm partial to Norse Mythology so how about, Heimdallr the gold-toothed, white-skinned god, born of nine mothers; (8 COGS and one HUB)
I can see it now, Project Heimdallr! I mean seriously, who wouldn't want to be a part of this dude's legacy?
Heimdallr is attested as possessing foreknowledge, keen eyesight and hearing, is described as "the whitest of the gods", and keeps watch for the onset of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar
Seems like Chip has already provided a nice image for us with the Mustang (horse) -vs- Camel metaphor. For those who are in love with the Propeller name, you could call it a P51. I had a '67 Mustang once with a V8. Cars could lend mixed metaphors and make the idea less usable, but cars have (and are by one definition) propellers too ;-)
In keeping with the general aviation bent, and celebrating the new 16-cog version of the Propeller, what about naming the chip after famous and record-breaking aircraft which was powered by multiple 16-cylinder aviation engines?
In keeping with the general aviation bent, and celebrating the new 16-cog version of the Propeller, what about naming the chip after famous and record-breaking aircraft which was powered by multiple 16-cylinder aviation engines?
Cluso99's suggestion of P16C512A is a good one, and using cores, registers, shared memory, and smart pins to market the chip makes sense. Those are well understood terms that folks in the industry are comfortable with. Of course it doesn't hurt to point out that these are enhanced cores.
Of course there is no reason the cognoscenti cannot continue to call them cogs, hub, etc..
Maybe the X in P8X32A should be kept for consistency - I seriously like the 512 part! ;-) P16X512A
Yes, the P16X512A would be fine too.
The other one I thought about was
PX16C3512A (or PX16X512A) where PX seems to be the new moniker to replace the beanie. But the P8X32A would need to transition to PX8X32A as well to keep it in the family.
RossH,
I'm answering your post here by request to keep the PII thread uncluttered,
I'm afraid if you don't get it by now, there is simply no hope - not for you, and (probably) not for the Propeller. What hope do we have if even some of the supposed
cognoscenti don't get it? Multi-core processors are a dime a dozen. The Propeller is unique (as far as I know) in the micro-controller domain.
We are on the same page:
I agree every man hand his dog has a multi-core processor. ARM, Intel, Parallax etc. Not quite a dime a dozen but pretty darn cheap.
Yes, the Propeller is unique. I don't know of any other micro-controllers with 8 cores let alone 16. Closest rival in that ring is XMOS with their xcore devices. Maximum of 4 cores, 8 hardware scheduled threads each.
But then you start to see things that are not there: From the wikipedia entry on multi-core processors:
A multi-core processor is a single computing component with two or more independent actual central processing units (called "cores"), which are the units that read and execute program instructions.[1] The instructions are ordinaryCPU instructions such as add, move data, and branch, but the multiple cores can run multiple instructions at the same time, increasing overall speed for programs amenable to parallel computing.[2] Manufacturers typically integrate the cores onto a single integrated circuitdie (known as a chip multiprocessor or CMP), or onto multiple dies in a singlechip package.
Sounds exactly like a Propeller to me. Have a look at the first block diagram on that page. Even looks like a Propeller, although they only show two cores.
So, rather than tell us we are hopeless, which may well be true, tell us what is the difference between a Propeller II core and any other old core.
I can make a start for you:
a) The I/O pins tightly coupled to the cores. No going through that memory bus interface.
b) Counters and video stuff are tightly coupled to the cores.
c) Propeller processors can execute out of their own registers, a unique ability I believe, for an extra speed boost.
d) Use of WAITxxx gives you low latency response to events without using interrupts.
a) The I/O pins tightly coupled to the cores. No going through that memory bus interface.
b) Counters and video stuff are tightly coupled to the cores.
c) Propeller processors can execute out of their own registers, a unique ability I believe, for an extra speed boost.
d) Use of WAITxxx gives you low latency response to events without using interrupts.
What else ?
All of these things you list are why I referred to it as "multiple micro-controllers" when someone suggested calling them CPU's. To Ross' point, they are much more than cores. They can independently perform micro-controller functions due to the unique executable register file and the direct access to I/O pins along with built in counters and video functions. When you combine all this with access to a large shared RAM space (which is also fully executable, so we've shed that shackle of P1 past), and the PIN BRAINS, it becomes truly unique. But if folks don't take that first look because they see something useful in terms they can understand, it doesn't matter what you have, you'll never get picked. In this case, first impressions are important just so you get a second look.
It's like the hiring process in the US if you do not have a college degree on your CV, you can't get past the initial applicant sorting. Whether good or bad, that is the touchstone HR folks apply. A great amount of talent is overlooked and a lot of deadwood is let through but there needs to be something to use that is common, shared and identifiable. If HR was told to look for "X" and your school happened to call it "Y", then you are not considered.
The Propeller 1 chip is an 8-core microcontroller with 32kB time-shared RAM.
This latest chip is a 16-core microcontroller with 512kB time-shared RAM.
Second line: Each core inside this chip is identical in terms of ability and assistance hardware. All cores are able to have direct access to all of the I/O pins.
Third line: Cores can be loaded with a task, reloaded, and stopped as needed. Any core can be paused down to very low power, waiting for a count or pin state change.
Actually, I had a new line of thought for naming the P2. As I mentioned elsewhere, "Propeller 2" just seems anticlimactic at this point. But I understand the desire to leverage the "Propeller" name. How about calling it the "Pro 16"!
(note: I am no longer of the opinion that we need a name that is flexible enough for releasing variant chips. Considering the time it's taken to get this one done, any variant is likely to be different enough that any name we come up with now will likely not be a good fit then!)
Actually, I had a new line of thought for naming the P2. As I mentioned elsewhere, "Propeller 2" just seems anticlimactic at this point. But I understand the desire to leverage the "Propeller" name. How about calling it the "Pro 16"!
(note: I am no longer of the opinion that we need a name that is flexible enough for releasing variant chips. Considering the time it's taken to get this one done, any variant is likely to be different enough that any name we come up with now will likely not be a good fit then!)
I was reflecting on names, with the new intel D2000 release (see other thread).
Seems even intel can fumble these things.
Oversights/failures I see
As a Quark promotion, this is a good idea. it puts a peg in the ground, and intel are back in the Microcontroller space with a Flash device.
- but then intel call the part D2000 - quite search anonymous, and even confusing in their own numbers.
I can find a D1000 that seems rev 1 silicon, like someone then decided, 'no one buys Rev1', so they flip to D2000, but google also finds "D2000 series", which are very different intel parts.
Result, a part that is hard to find, and conflicts : exactly what NOT to do.
I think any P2 name needs to be internet searchable and not conflicting or generic.
The ARM Cortex Mx series seem smarter, not binary compatible, but under one brand umbrella, Likewise PICxx
Comments
Okay, I'm relieved!
I thought you were actually invoking the Moderator Monkey on me, at first, but you were reposting the message to spread it around. I get it now.
No worries here, A great time to take a breath, have a laugh,
And I'm not the Monkey. I allow much more leeway.
Rich
Perhaps the number 31310 could be the parallax stock number (EiEiO)
Since 'the product to be named' has features unique even in the multi-core world........... extend the name to
Multi-core with = = = = =
Such as "multi-core with high-velocity i/o aribitration"
Such a phrase would cause the reader to pause and then want to hear more. Isn't that really want you want rather than to be merely in the same bin as the rest of the crowd?
I'd be happy if you named the new product, "Fat Lady". It would make me smile, but Parallax Corp. would likely be avoided by the corporate world for fear that somewhere at sometime this might be offensive to somebody. (So but I like irreverant non-sequiturs.)
"Propeller" is that funny little device with no native program space.
Maybe the PII should have a totally different name.
As much as I like the Propeller name, and the imagery that Parallax used with it (the cogs, hub, props, the beanie and such) you are right. People that have already heard about that 'strange propeller chip Parallax has' may not even give this one a look assuming it is just as strange.
This chip, and its tool set, will be much more relatable to the typical engineer/programmer. It needs a clean start.
The P1 was fun, flippant, and hip. Not part of that 'old school' the other chips went to.
The P16X32 needs to be the serious, flexible, get it done work horse. It can have flair and mystique but where the P1 was Popeye it needs to be Bond, James Bond cool.
Yes. Just some suggestions to continue the brainstorming...
MegaPro (Pro either Processor or Propeller) If we could squeeze 1MB into it would match the first particle in the name too
HexaDec (Hexadeca = 16)
TurboProp (but it resembles too much the Prepeller)
Alex
"16 parallel 32-bit micro-controllers on a single chip with shared access to 512Kb of memory and 64 Smart I/O Pins."
Which ushers in a whole new family of devices...
Macro-controllers
or
Multi-controllers
Once you are in a new device family that you founded, you can have any catchy development name that can leak out: Phoenix, etc.
I'm partial to Norse Mythology so how about, Heimdallr the gold-toothed, white-skinned god, born of nine mothers; (8 COGS and one HUB)
I can see it now, Project Heimdallr! I mean seriously, who wouldn't want to be a part of this dude's legacy?
P51 formation (link) found at Olive Drab
Single P51 (link) by James Baldwin
Mustang (link) found at Southern Oaks Equestrian
I have seem similar mentioned before, but how about...
P16C512A
P=Parallax
16C=16 cores
512=512KB RAM (hub to the rest of us, and P1 had 32KB RAM)
A=revision of chip (many anticipate this)
Now it fits into the P1 mould as another chip in the family.
+1 !
Perfect!
Now we just need a catchy name...
Answer : here.
Wow! I hope the new design doesn't get that hot!!
That looks waaaaaay too much like Microchip's PIC chip numbering scheme.
Of course there is no reason the cognoscenti cannot continue to call them cogs, hub, etc..
(Sorry, just couldn't resist)
Kurt
The other one I thought about was
PX16C3512A (or PX16X512A) where PX seems to be the new moniker to replace the beanie. But the P8X32A would need to transition to PX8X32A as well to keep it in the family.
I'm answering your post here by request to keep the PII thread uncluttered,
We are on the same page:
I agree every man hand his dog has a multi-core processor. ARM, Intel, Parallax etc. Not quite a dime a dozen but pretty darn cheap.
Yes, the Propeller is unique. I don't know of any other micro-controllers with 8 cores let alone 16. Closest rival in that ring is XMOS with their xcore devices. Maximum of 4 cores, 8 hardware scheduled threads each.
But then you start to see things that are not there: From the wikipedia entry on multi-core processors:
A multi-core processor is a single computing component with two or more independent actual central processing units (called "cores"), which are the units that read and execute program instructions.[1] The instructions are ordinaryCPU instructions such as add, move data, and branch, but the multiple cores can run multiple instructions at the same time, increasing overall speed for programs amenable to parallel computing.[2] Manufacturers typically integrate the cores onto a single integrated circuit die (known as a chip multiprocessor or CMP), or onto multiple dies in a singlechip package.
Sounds exactly like a Propeller to me. Have a look at the first block diagram on that page. Even looks like a Propeller, although they only show two cores.
So, rather than tell us we are hopeless, which may well be true, tell us what is the difference between a Propeller II core and any other old core.
I can make a start for you:
a) The I/O pins tightly coupled to the cores. No going through that memory bus interface.
b) Counters and video stuff are tightly coupled to the cores.
c) Propeller processors can execute out of their own registers, a unique ability I believe, for an extra speed boost.
d) Use of WAITxxx gives you low latency response to events without using interrupts.
What else ?
All of these things you list are why I referred to it as "multiple micro-controllers" when someone suggested calling them CPU's. To Ross' point, they are much more than cores. They can independently perform micro-controller functions due to the unique executable register file and the direct access to I/O pins along with built in counters and video functions. When you combine all this with access to a large shared RAM space (which is also fully executable, so we've shed that shackle of P1 past), and the PIN BRAINS, it becomes truly unique. But if folks don't take that first look because they see something useful in terms they can understand, it doesn't matter what you have, you'll never get picked. In this case, first impressions are important just so you get a second look.
It's like the hiring process in the US if you do not have a college degree on your CV, you can't get past the initial applicant sorting. Whether good or bad, that is the touchstone HR folks apply. A great amount of talent is overlooked and a lot of deadwood is let through but there needs to be something to use that is common, shared and identifiable. If HR was told to look for "X" and your school happened to call it "Y", then you are not considered.
This latest chip is a 16-core microcontroller with 512kB time-shared RAM.
Second line: Each core inside this chip is identical in terms of ability and assistance hardware. All cores are able to have direct access to all of the I/O pins.
Third line: Cores can be loaded with a task, reloaded, and stopped as needed. Any core can be paused down to very low power, waiting for a count or pin state change.
Actually, I had a new line of thought for naming the P2. As I mentioned elsewhere, "Propeller 2" just seems anticlimactic at this point. But I understand the desire to leverage the "Propeller" name. How about calling it the "Pro 16"!
(note: I am no longer of the opinion that we need a name that is flexible enough for releasing variant chips. Considering the time it's taken to get this one done, any variant is likely to be different enough that any name we come up with now will likely not be a good fit then!)
I was reflecting on names, with the new intel D2000 release (see other thread).
Seems even intel can fumble these things.
Oversights/failures I see
As a Quark promotion, this is a good idea. it puts a peg in the ground, and intel are back in the Microcontroller space with a Flash device.
- but then intel call the part D2000 - quite search anonymous, and even confusing in their own numbers.
I can find a D1000 that seems rev 1 silicon, like someone then decided, 'no one buys Rev1', so they flip to D2000, but google also finds "D2000 series", which are very different intel parts.
Result, a part that is hard to find, and conflicts : exactly what NOT to do.
I think any P2 name needs to be internet searchable and not conflicting or generic.
The ARM Cortex Mx series seem smarter, not binary compatible, but under one brand umbrella, Likewise PICxx