|
|
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | > [[Main Page]] > [[Piano Expander based on Pianotec and Odroid-N2]]
| + | ==''' [[Piano_Expander_based_on_Pianoteq_and_Odroid-N2|Sorry - a big mistake - a typo in the name of Pianoteq - please used this link to follow the corrected web-page]]'''== |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==''' Software '''== | |
| − | === ARM 32 vs. AARCH64 ===
| |
| − | * [https://www.cnx-software.com/2016/03/01/64-bit-arm-aarch64-instructions-boost-performance-by-15-to-30-compared-to-32-bit-arm-aarch32-instructions/ CNX-Software: 64-bit ARM (Aarch64) Instructions Boost Performance by 15 to 30% Compared to 32-bit ARM (Aarch32) Instructions]
| |
| − | * I still hope, that [https://www.modartt.com/ Modartt] will supply [https://www.modartt.com/pianoteq Pianoteq] sometimes compiled for AARCH64 architecture. In my opinion 32-bit code on any ARM module (Raspberry PI, Banana PI, Odroid etc.) doesn't make sense. Modules which provide only ARM-32 bit architecture don't have the calculation power for Pianoteq. So why should those CPUs be supported?
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Pianotec Stage ===
| |
| − | * coming soon
| |
| − | | |
| − | === CPU Performance Benchmarks ===
| |
| − | ==== Benchmark by Marcos Daniel ====
| |
| − | *[https://github.com/marcosdanielfl/ptq_bench/blob/master/ptq_benc.c Github: ptq_bench.c]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | > [[Main Page]] > [[Piano Expander based on Pianotec and Odroid-N2]]
| |