[hpsdr] DFC

[Helmut]

Absolutely correct, Henry, verilog is not everybody's favorite. 10 GBit is
an option for future hardware design, especially to get the 6 m band back,
but the current hardware makes only 61,44 x 16 = 983 Mbps transfer rate
possible (representing a 0 -30 MHz spectrum)

 

73, Helmut, DC6NY

 

Von: Hpsdr [mailto:hpsdr-bounces at lists.openhpsdr.org] Im Auftrag von Henry
Vredegoor
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2016 16:08
An: hpsdr at lists.openhpsdr.org
Betreff: Re: [hpsdr] DFC

 

Hi All,

What I understand from the Teamspeak discussions is that one of the big
advantages also is that the development of software is "easier" for PC
related software than  for FPGA software. (long compile times and critical
timing issues etc. for FPGA)  and that a many more people know how to
develop software for a PC than for FPGA's and so many more people could
contibute.

@Helmut:  I thought 10 GBit was mentioned as a possibility?

73,

Henry - PA0HJA




On 12-5-2016 15:40, n3evl wrote:

***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
 





Sounds interesting.  I recall some early discussions relating to DFC that I
think initially had the objective of minimizing the involvement of the FPGA
but this sounds even better!  I must admit I am way behind listening to my
TeamSpeak recordings.  Looking forward to see what Phil has to say.

Pete, N3EVL

On 5/12/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Traurig wrote:

I believe Phil's efforts on DFC are wholly focused on his new circuit card
design that I think he intends to present at Friedrichshafen this June,
based on Teamspeak discussions. This card will take raw ADC output and put
it directly onto a PCIE bus for processing in an NVIDIA GPU (CUDA
processing) also resident on the same PCIE bus. The great advantage of this,
of course, is that such an architecture would eliminate the requirement for
complex and expensive FPGA processing, and thereby also open up development
of what used to be FPGA firmware to C developers. 

 

73,

 

Scott/w-u-2-o

 

 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:55 AM, n3evl <n3evl at townisp.com> wrote:

***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****



I'm also curious about DFC, specifically, what will the minimum radio
hardware requirements be?  I currently have an Atlas based system but seem
to recall that, at least for the moment, this hardware will not support the
new protocol and I think the new protocol is essential for DFC.  Should I be
thinking of investing in a Hermes (or Hemes derivative) based radio in order
to take advantage of DFC?

Pete, N3EVL





 


_______________________________________________
HPSDR Discussion List
To post msg: hpsdr at openhpsdr.org
Subscription help:
http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org
HPSDR web page: http://openhpsdr.org
Archives: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/

 







_______________________________________________
HPSDR Discussion List
To post msg: hpsdr at openhpsdr.org
Subscription help:
http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org
HPSDR web page: http://openhpsdr.org
Archives: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/attachments/20160512/cc62d9fc/attachment.htm>