Comment by rogerrogerr
12 days ago
Or a third option - an economic success that economies of scale have made massively capable hardware the cheapest option for many applications, despite being overkill.
12 days ago
Or a third option - an economic success that economies of scale have made massively capable hardware the cheapest option for many applications, despite being overkill.
Also see: USB 3+ e-marker chips. I'm still waiting for a Doom port on those.
Or the fourth option, an environmental disaster all around
The materials that go into a chip are nothing. The process of making the chip is roughly the same no matter the power of it. So having one chip that can satisfy a large range of customers needs is so much better than wasting development time making a custom just good enough chip for each.
> The materials that go into a chip are nothing.
They really aren't. Every material that goes into every chip needs to be sourced from various mines around the world, shipped to factories to be assembled, then the end goods need to be shipped again around the world to be sold or directly dumped.
High power, low power, it all has negative environmental impact.
11 replies →
[dead]
It’s the opposite. Using an off the shelf MCU is much more efficient than trying to spin your own ASIC.
Doing the work in software allows for updates and bug fixes, which are more likely to prevent piles of hardware from going into the landfill (in some cases before they even reach customers’ hands).
You have to use a chip, and no matter what kind of chip you're paying for the same raw resources.
I don't think you have an actual argument here, you just want to be indignant and contrarian.
What do you mean? Earbud are environmental disasters?
Nobody cares, unless they’re commenting for an easy win on internet message boards.