As multicore processor design hits power, memory and ILP walls with increasing frequency, the established methodology is pinning much hope on 3D heterogenous approaches. Those efforts will be described in detail in a series of best practices tutorials at this year’s ISQED symposium March 19, in the Techmart Center in Santa Clara, California.
Brian Leibowitz of Rambus Inc. will review the key specifications of memory subsystems and evaluate the advantages and limitations of a variety of design techniques such as low swing signaling, resonant clocking, DVFS, and fast power state transitions, as well as those of emerging 3D packaging methods.
Puneet Gupta, University of California, Los Angeles will address scaling of physical dimensions faster than the optical wavelengths or equipment tolerances used in the manufacturing line leading to increased process variability and low yields which make design process expensive and unpredictable. “Equivalent scaling” improvements – perhaps as much as one full technology generation, can come from looking “up” to circuit design.
As the semiconductor industry migrates toward extreme monolithic foundry level 3D heterogeneous structures for mixed-signal components and systems, Farhang Yazdani, president of BroadPak Corporation, will argue that 3D silicon/glass interposer and through silicon via (TSV) technology will play a significant role in next generation 3D packaging solutions.
Rafael Rios senior researcher in the Manufacturing Group at Intel, will explore the innovations that lead to extending Moore’s law into nano-scale feature sizes, including advances in device design, computational lithography, and materials engineering. We will also explore current research work looking into extending Moore’s law into the future. Hsien-Hsin S. Lee, Georgia Institute of Technology will focus on die-stacked 3D integration as the frontrunner technology to continue Gordon Moore’s prophecy in the vertical dimension. Stephen Pateras, product marketing director for Mentor Graphics Silicon Test Solutions group, will contend that 3D IC offers a compelling alternative to traditional scaling for achieving advances in performance, reduced power consumption, cost reduction, and increased functionality in a small package.
Following is a Footwasher Media interview with Fanny Mlinarsky, President of octoScope, sponsored by element14. We discuss next generation OFDM and MIMO techniques and how they are evolving from the LTE and 802.11n technologies to the emerging technologies being developed for LTE-Advanced and 802.11ac solutions .
Fanny Mlinarsky
FM: Simply put, both technologies are evolving to run faster over a longer range and to support multiple simultaneous transmissions in the same space and frequency channel.
Faster data rates are achieved through the use of wider channels, higher orders of MIMO (multiple input multiple output) and higher order modulation. Although marketers refer to LTE as 4G, officially only LTE-A has been declared 4G by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union).
NTP: Does the new spatial multiplexing feature mean that we are NOT now running out of spectrum space as previously reported?
FM: Due to the scarcity of licensed spectrum, LTE-A has different challenges from those of 802.11ac that has over 400 MHz of spectrum in the unlicensed 5 GHz band. Licensed spectrum typically comes in slivers of a few MHz. Thus, to increase throughput, LTE-A has introduced spectrum bonding of non-contiguous bands. To accommodate a higher density of users, LTE-A supports small, short-range base stations, which calls for better management of cell-edge interference through CoMP (Coordinated multi-point) and ICIC (Advanced inter-cell interference coordination) techniques.
A data rate of 6.9 Gbps is achievable, or at least defined in the IEEE 802.11ac draft specification, “IEEE P802.11ac™/D1.4”. Achieving 6.9 Gbps requires QAM256 modulation and support for 8 spatial streams in a160 MHz wide channel. LTE-A is expected to reach up to 1 Gbps DL (downlink) and 500 Mbps UL (uplink) rates in a 100 MHz wide channel.
NTP: What new design considerations do these advanced specifications introduce for Wireless System Designers?
FM: MIMO algorithms use multiple synchronized radios (up to 4 for 802.11n and LTE; up to 8 for 802.11ac) to adapt to continuously changing conditions in the wireless channel. These techniques include:
TX and RX diversity to add robustness to the communications when channel conditions are challenging (e.g. low SNR or high multipath)
Spatial multiplexing to increase throughput by sending multiple simultaneous streams when channel conditions are favorable
Beamforming to extend range and to enable MU-MIMO (multi-user MIMO)
MU-MIMO to enable multiple stations to transmit simultaneously in the same frequency channel by focusing the antenna pattern. (See figure 1 above)
MIMO radios sense the conditions in the channel on a packet-by-packet basis and make instantaneous decisions on which of the above techniques to employ. Testing of these radios requires new generation over-the-air (OTA) technology, such as the octoBox controlled environment OTA test station.
NTP: How do the advanced solutions benefit engineers or humanity at large?
FM: Aside from the obvious fun with video and location-based apps, pervasive connectivity enabled by
MIMO radio technology enables spatial multiplexing and beamforming for sending multiple parallel data streams in the same space and on the same frequency
Wi-Fi and LTE technologies is poised to help with vital public safety and E-911 communications. Spectrum in the 700 MHz band has recently been licensed by the FCC to carry a nationwide public safety LTE network, which for the first time will interconnect police, fire, ambulance and other emergency services coast-to-coast for effective management of large scale disasters and incidents.
For engineers, the work is clearly cut out: continue developing connected, location-aware platforms and applications. Can I poll my refrigerator from the supermarket to download a shopping list? Can my car sense a red light, while I’m distracted by talking on my smartphone, and apply breaks, avoiding a terrible accident?
NTP: What new features / products / services can end users expect as a result of these new specifications?
The initial release of 802.11ac will operate in 80 MHz channels, enabling over 3 Gbps data rates with throughput sufficient for transporting multiple HD video streams around a typical residence. LTE-A users will enjoy faster throughput and will have access to small base stations – femto- and picocells – to improve high-speed coverage indoors.
NTP:According to The Nielsen Company, 14% of U.S. mobile users (about 31 million people) now watch videos on their smartphones, a 35% increase over last year. Also, 29% of U.S. smartphone users stream music or Internet radio to their phones, up 66% from 2010. It’s clear the way we use our phones is changing, what are the biggest challenges coming in the near future that designers should be thinking about now?
FM: The biggest challenges will be upgrading the backhaul infrastructure to support the video traffic being generated by modern smartphone applications. Today’s wireless backhaul is built for narrowband voice signaling and is poorly suited for the sudden dramatic increase in bandwidth usage. The innovations will come in the form of both higher capacity backhaul networks (e.g., new microwave backhaul links) and also in the intelligence introduced to the network architecture to manage traffic load, for example through charging higher fees during peak usage hours. Wi-Fi will increasingly be used to offload mobile traffic to landline access networks.
NTP: What do you think is the next “big shift” we’ll see in how people use their phones? What do designers need to be thinking about when designing for this next “big shift”?
FM: Artificial intelligence. The HAL-9000 computer envisioned by Arthur C. Clark in ‘2001’ is a bit late to market now, but its time has definitely come with Apple’s Siri. That is the transition from research to commercial use. With pervasive broadband connectivity, powerful parallel computing in the palms of our hands, sophisticated software development tools, voice recognition, wireless sensors and location awareness, the sky is the limit for where the imagination of platform and applications developers will take us next.
The growing relationship between Sharp and Apple that was revealed last week put to bed conjecture whether Apple’s next leap might be into television. It is. And that leaves an open question:
Has Apple gone mad?
The profit margin on TV’s is razor thin at best. In 2007 the average screen sold for $982; this year it’s $545 and, in many cases, TVs are a loss leader for electronics retailers (you make money on the cables, you know). Apple has always been about margin and their phones, computers and tablets have had a much higher profit then just about anyone else.
Steve Jobs dropped a hint to his biographer when he said he had finally figured out how to change the TV market. Like all of Apple’s breakthroughs it had to be in the arena of the user interface demonstrated with the release of the iPhone 4 – the voice interface Siri. The Apple TV final product may not be hardware at all, but voice recognition software. And after all the years that Apple has remained steadfastly against licensing its technology, Siri could become a standard in television and a steady stream of revenue for Apple.
In the past two years, TVs have become connected to the internet, cable systems, and telephones with multiple input ports. But that has made their use even more complex for the average user. A huge after-market industry for universal remotes relies on this complexity for their sales. In fact, the complexity of modern electronics is the final barrier to adoption for many.
But Siri could make controlling the various functions as simple as vocalizing a request. “Adjust sound for music.” “Record CSI:Miami.” “Show me email.” Combining the technology with Facetime would make it possible for the user to say, “Call Mom” and start a video chat on the main screen. The vision of a communications hub in the home could be realized, not with new hardware and a bunch of cables, but with one app.
That’s pretty big.
What do you think the next big evolution in TV will be? Join the discussion at www.element14.com
By Lou Covey
Editorial Director for Footwasher Media
The web is awash with reviews of the Kindle Fire, many positive (some scathingly negative), and the comparisons to the iPad are just as plentiful. The question that keeps coming up, however, is the Fire a game changer in the tablet war? Probably not for Apple, but probably in the Android world and definitely in the remains of RIM’s empire.
In the iPad comparison, the Fire is the inexpensive, entry-level tablet for noobs. At $199 it is better than half the price of the iPad, which means people who want the media experience of a tablet at bargain prices, it’s a good choice. Although Apple has released the latest version of the iPod Touch at the same price, so if the user doesn’t care about the screen size, you can get a more flexible, powerful product from Apple, still. The Fire performs slower and using key pad apps will be difficult on the much smaller screen, barring significant improvements in touch technology.
The iPad, especially when paired with an after-market bluetooth keyboard, makes an effective laptop replacement. There are even productivity apps that make it possible to use the iPad for word processing, spreadsheets and presentations. All of that is lacking in the Fire. As far as content goes, the fire serves well as a distribution method for Amazon, but like most Android devices, it lacks the depth of apps in the iOS universe. So Apple execs won’t be losing any sleep over the sales of the Fire. Google, on the other hand… The introduction of the Fire further fragments the developer community that is divided between iOS, Android, Blackberry and even Microsoft 7 Phone (MS7). Developers can bypass the Google Market
IDC survey shows Kindle Fire app development cutting in on Android market
and deal directly with Amazon, which is great for Amazon but not so much for Google. IDC just released a quarterly survey that shows that developers are abandoning all other tablets in north America to create apps for the Fire. The trend seems to be going that way in Asia and Europe, as well. So while Google was looking at Apple as their main competitor, Amazon has been snaking the market out from under them. Yoink! The future for RIM’s Blackberry is even grimmer. The same IDC report said MS7 has now surpassed RIM as the third place tablet OS developers prefer to work in. Along with the continuing decline in the overall device market, RIM seems to be hanging on by it’s fingernails. So the Fire IS a game changer for RIM. Their technology has just not kept up with the market development. The Playbook was a joke, a little less funny than HP’s tablet.
RIM is going nowhere… except into someone else’s division. RIM still has a lot of value. They have a pretty loyal customer base, albeit shrinking. They have that bag of Nortel patents in wireless technology, the best security platform and the best integration of MS Exchange and Lotus notes. Microsoft could become a serious competitor to Android and iOS if they bought RIM, and that would change the game for everyone.
By Ann Steffora Mutschler Senior Correspondent, New Tech Press
With engineers clamoring for all things Android and open-source, the RTOS market is experiencing some major changes – although that depends on whom you ask.
According to his blog, Krasner pointed out, “In EMF’s 2011 Annual Survey of Embedded Developers…developers reported using an in-house RTOS (20.1%), Android (19.3%), XPE (16.5%) and Windows CE (15.9%). FreeRTOS was used by 0.9% of respondents. From our perspective, the suggestion that FreeRTOS use would exceed that of in-house, Android, XPE, CE, or VxWorks use is beyond any reasonable reality check.”
This of course has set the stage for confusion among all parties, as to which RTOS is really leading the pack.
There is no doubt, however, that internally developed RTOSs come out ahead of commercial ones.
David Blaza, VP at UBM said there is a “stubborn percentage of developers who stick with their home-grown OS and the reason for that is that they invest a lot of time and money in it and they know how it works – it does the job. Engineers are very, very conservative: they don’t really want to change. Just the sheer investment in code is monumental for them.”
But, Chris Rommel, VP at VDC Research pointed out, engineers are slowly shifting away from internally developed RTOSs because, “not every type of embedded type of device needs a robust RTOS.”
Users have stuck with in-house RTOSs mainly due to legacy assets and organizational issues. Plus, the scale of the organization or project comes into play – licensing a commercial RTOS can be cost-prohibitive to some companies, he said. CE devices don’t have a real-time requirement but there is, however, a big difference between a simple office printer and the cockpit controls of an airplane. Rommel did remind that it is not always clear cut in terms of OS choice since the value of the legacy work must be consideration in the decision-making process.
Krasner’s data also shows that in-house RTOS are still the biggest chunk of the market. “Year over year over year people have, as far as them writing new stuff, it’s not worth their money but there are an awful lot of people who have legacy stuff that they invested in 10 or 15 years ago and its much cheaper to hang onto that. The in-house stuff is not people saying they are going to spend six months writing their own RTOS – it’s that they have it, it’s legacy, it’s proprietary, its got feature that they want. In their mind, they are economizing what they already have instead of having to go out and pay.”
In terms of weighing various market research report results, UBM’s Blaza believes, “it is all about who is paying the piper, frankly. We just report what we see. We have the largest embedded audience in the world and we just report what we see and we had to put it in,” he said referring to the FreeRTOS results that some have questioned.
At the end of the day, the most critical data for engineering and marketing teams to get a handle on is what they want out of the market research they purchase or commission. As for vendor rankings…that may be best sorted out in a boxing ring.
As multicore processor design hits power, memory and ILP walls with increasing frequency, the established methodology is pinning much hope on 3D heterogenous approaches. Those efforts will be described in detail in a series of best practices tutorials at this year’s ISQED symposium March 19, in the Techmart Center in Santa Clara, California.![[del.icio.us]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.newtechpress.net/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
