[HN Gopher] Tinker V: Single-board RISC-V computer ___________________________________________________________________ Tinker V: Single-board RISC-V computer Author : nixcraft Score : 81 points Date : 2023-03-20 14:50 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (tinker-board.asus.com) (TXT) w3m dump (tinker-board.asus.com) | whitehexagon wrote: | Did I miss the pricing? I quite fancy the "StarFive's VisionFive | 2" that was mentioned here a while back (assuming software | improves a bit), but once again not clear what this new board | offers in terms of RISC-V extensions/level of support. btw I | noticed today that Pine64 are also planning a cheap RISC-V board | maybe next month. | [deleted] | CharlesW wrote: | > _Did I miss the pricing?_ | | If you follow the "Where to Buy" links for the United States, | it's available from Amazon for $280. | microtherion wrote: | No, that link goes to the Tinker Edge, a board with a | different CPU and a TPU. As far as I can tell, Amazon does | not carry the Tinker V at all. | metaphor wrote: | Nope...the Amazon page that ASUS redirects to[1] is a | different SBC[2]. | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Tinker-1-5GHz-Graphics- | Motherboa... | | [2] https://tinker-board.asus.com/product/tinker-edge-t.html | whitehexagon wrote: | Thanks, I only scanned Europe. But anyway that is quite a | premium over the SV2 at around $70? And I got the impression | Star64 will also be in that lower price bracket, but lets | wait and see. | FullyFunctional wrote: | It adds a much slower CPU /s | | The VisionFive 2 is currently the best RISC-V SBC option, at | least until TH1520 becomes available (next month?), depending | on the price. | | I can vouch for the VF2 hardware - works well. Alas PCIe is | oddly slow, but I'm hopeful that firmware will improve that. | | EDIT: The Pine Star64 is (should be) the exact same SOC, so it | should be basically the same as VF2 (small differences like | PCIe edge connector instead of an M.2 slot, etc). | whitehexagon wrote: | Thanks. I saw there is a pine64 EU store now, so fingers | crossed they will stock it, although a working PCIe would | also be very nice! I hadn't heard of TH1520 until now, 2.5GHz | is going to give the Pi4 a better run for it's money. | brucehoult wrote: | It looks like they're going to be running the bare chip at | 1.85 GHz stock. Will probably need to add a heatsink and | maybe fan to get to the rated 2.5 GHz. | | And, yes, with its OoO CPU cores it should match a Pi 4 at | the same MHz, but do more MHz. | brucehoult wrote: | People are getting around 250 MB/s from an SSD on the PCIe | (M.2) on VisionFive 2. Ok, so you'd ideally like 400 MB/s | from 1 lane, but it's still 10x better than SD card. | | It's probably being limited because the RAM to RAM copy speed | isn't much more than that! I get 475 MB/s memcpy() speed for | 64 MB copies on my VisionFive 2. The much slower CPU on the | AllWinner D1 manages 1100 MB/s n the same code. Somehow the | SiFive-based SoCs have never been good on RAM speed -- the | HiFive Unleashed and Unmatched were even worse than this. | | Hopefully the Horse Creek SoC has some good Intel DDR IP in | it. | FullyFunctional wrote: | I'm getting ~ 180 MB/s on a Samsung SM8?? which hits around | 3 GB/s on a desktop. I'm using a 5.1V 3.5A supply so that | ought not be the issue (but I'll try another PSU now). | | Horse Creek would be nice - should it ever become available | for purchase. | rektide wrote: | Pretty cool seeing a RISC-V chip from a longstanding well known | name in chipmaking, Renesas. | chunk_waffle wrote: | Wish the SuperH stuff would have panned out, the open source | stuff seems to be dead on the vine :( | rektide wrote: | Agreed. The j3 & especially j4 cores would have been very | interesting baselines to compare against. https://j-core.org/ | peoplearepeople wrote: | The first RISC-V single-board computer.... from ASUS that is | pinewurst wrote: | The real title actually says that - HN submitter chose to chop | there | dang wrote: | We've fixed it now. Thanks! (Submitted title was 'Tinker V: The | first RISC-V single-board computer") | jerrysievert wrote: | (from Asus). | | there are other SBC's available, like the mango pi mq pro, which | is in the form factor of a raspberry pi zero. | Reitet00 wrote: | Looks nice! Too bad it's not PoE powered. That'd be great for | simplifying IoT provisioning. | johnwalkr wrote: | Would be nice but it's easy to add with an external adapter. | chunk_waffle wrote: | > The first RISC-V single-board computer | | > from ASUS | | The "from ASUS" part is pretty important to that headline IMHO... | msla wrote: | Hey, if Apple can be recognized as the inventor of the GUI... | garbagecoder wrote: | Apple didn't "invent" the GUI and Columbus didn't discover | America, but they popularized it, at least among a certain | set. | | No one was popularized RISC-V yet. Maybe Asus will be the | one! | rocket_surgeron wrote: | Are they? | | As far as I'm aware, there are only categories of people when | it comes to "the invention of the GUI": | | 1. People who know it was a long and involved development | process involving many people starting in the 1960s. | | 2. People who don't care. | | edit: Lol y'all some bitches. | uticus wrote: | I'm confused. When I click on "Where to Buy" it sends me to an | Amazon page with these specs: | | > CPU and GPU: Quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 and integrated GC7000 | Lite Graphics | | > CPU Socket Quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 | | > Chipset Type Quad-core ARM | | ...am I right to expect something _not_ ARM? | | [edit] nm, apparently the SBC series also offers ARM | st3fan wrote: | Unobtainium? Doesn't actually seem to be for sale anywhere? | fortysixdegrees wrote: | In my work I have had to evaluate a whole bunch of SBCs, and the | Asus Tinkerboard is a cut above all the others. | | I expect the quality of this board to be similar | aacid wrote: | > Micro-USB | | Honestly?? | tlavoie wrote: | I see people complain about Micro-USB in various places, and am | not quite sure what the problem is. You're connecting to some | relatively small, low-power device, not powering a beefy | laptop. Is it problematic to have too many cables in the drawer | that fit? | kube-system wrote: | It's an older standard, and if nothing else, the | reversibility of type-c is worth the 10 cents. | | And because one of the ports is USB OTG, one of the intended | uses is for a micro B connector as the host connector. Which | is a misuse of the originally intended function of that | connector anyway. | tlavoie wrote: | Thanks, just seems like much ado about nothing, other than | that last part. | | I know I've got a wealth of devices that have the various | formats, mostly micro. Their functionality still seems | fine, so the anguish that pops up from time to time seems a | bit much. | wolrah wrote: | Amen to this. I wish the USB-IF would officially deprecate the | entire mini and micro line, stating that they are not allowed | to be used and will not be certified compliant in new hardware | designs unless the new design is intended to be a physically | identical drop-in replacement for an older design that used | those ports. | | There is no good excuse for these ports' continued use in new | designs, just penny pinching nonsense. | | Host-side ports can be full size A or C, device side ports can | be full size B or C, anything else is just being cheap. | kube-system wrote: | USB-IF should be forced to use PCs equipped only with Micro A | and Mini A ports. And to connect their peripherals, they must | first dig through a large bag of Micro/Mini B cables to find | a single Micro/Mini A cable. | | Although that might be so cruel that it violates the Geneva | Convention. | wyldfire wrote: | Probably saved a good $0.45 using a cheaper header. :( | thrown123098 wrote: | Or it was the only one they clild get in volume. The last 3 | years have been merry he'll on supply chains. | johnwalkr wrote: | Connectors, especially ones made by multiple manufacturers | in the same footprint (including usb-c)really weren't hit | hard by this. | bayindirh wrote: | This is an enterprise/industrial IoT board with CANBus and | RS232. These people carry RS232 over Ethernet and call it a | revolution. | | I'm sure that finding MiniUSB is much more easier on that | setting and ecosystem. | wolrah wrote: | > Or it was the only one they clild get in volume. The last | 3 years have been merry he'll on supply chains. | | This is Asus. They make a phone that has two USB-C ports, | plus a variety of mobile accessories that all have one. | They also make laptops, desktops, and motherboards that | generally have 2-4 of them. | | I'd be shocked if the sales of the entire Tinkerboard line | added up to even the mobile products alone, much less the | PC lines. | unusual-name wrote: | Apparently the CPU in this SBC violates the RISC-V ISA pretty | badly. [1] | | [1] | https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA++6G0Do001Bo+kxhUNz5T937TYU-K5... | pclmulqdq wrote: | Keep in mind the spec being violated is the privileged spec, | not the core instruction set (which is what people think of | when they think of an ISA violation). Personally, I think the | privileged spec is a little too overzealous about the | implementation-specific details that it specifies, and a little | more should have been left to chip vendors. | cdcarter wrote: | On the other hand, the privileged spec is also designed to | provide process isolation and other security features. It may | not seem as drastic as if a core instruction were | misinterpreted, but this is IMO not the layer you want | unexpected deviations from spec in. | Pet_Ant wrote: | For the uninitiated, what kind of things? I mean are these | things that are necessary for desktop operating systems, but | overkill when used as a DSP or something like that? I mean | these aren't dumb people working on this so I wonder what | this trade-off is. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Exactly that - they specify things that you need for an OS | on a desktop/server system but complete overkill for | embedded applications. I think the goal was to have one | version of "RISC-V Linux" without vendor-specific | extensions, but the chip vendors are used to their | extensions, and there are good reasons to allow them to | have some more customization (to allow design tradeoffs). | | Also, in the ARM ecosystem, some of the things that the | RISC-V spec specifies (like MMU details) are vendor- | specific, leading to a minor headache for OS writers, but | give chip manufacturers more freedom. Renesas may have | assumed they had the same freedom. | pm215 wrote: | On the other hand, it sounds from the thread like the result | of the deviation from the spec is "you can't run userspace | binaries unless you built them with a binutils that's working | around this", so it's not just a "weirdness the kernel has to | deal with" kind of thing. | brucehoult wrote: | If everyone is understanding it correctly then that appears | to be the case. Apparently user-space addresses from | 0x20000 to 0x3ffff are not mapped by the MMU in the | expected way, but are directly mapped to the same SRAM for | every program. | | A statically linked "HelloWorld" on my VisionFive 2 starts | from 0x10000 and runs up to 0x4ea8e, so smack through that | whole memory region. | | The only way to make programs compiled with a standard | binutils (or on another RISC-V machine, or a standard OS | running in a VM) work would be for the kernel to memcpy() | that 128k region in and out on every address space switch. | | It's really an awful bug (or design decision) if you want | to run standard OSes and standard code on it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-20 23:01 UTC)