throbber
TUPM 10.3
`ADVANCED MEDIA PROCESSOR CHIPS
`
`Robert J. Gove
`
`Equator Technologies, Inc.,
`1300 White Oaks Road, Campbell, CA 95008
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`Media processors will provide an effective solution for
`consumer products, including digital televisions (DTV).
`These flexible processors enable platforms for customer-
`added product differentiation in the form of software
`rather than hardware. A single media processor can
`execute audio, video, 3D graphics and communications
`functions which have traditionally been performed by
`several individual hardwired chips. We include an
`overview of media processors, comparing them to
`previous fixed-function implementations.
`
`Background
`
`Since the development of the first digital video product
`years ago, product developers have sought cost-effective
`computing platforms to handle the demands posed by
`simultaneously processing video, audio, 3D graphics and
`communications. For many reasons these solutions have
`been slow to evolve, somewhat limiting the acceptance of
`programmable solutions for consumer video products.
`Solutions incorporating multiple fixed-function chips have
`dominated consumer video product platforms.
`
`Some Media Processors (MPs) emerged to support the
`multimedia PC industry. Media computing technologies
`like image capture, processing and video display, coupled
`with the supporting media software platforms like Active-X
`and Talisman, made it relatively simple to develop high-
`performance multimedia solutions on a PC platform. To
`date, limited acceptance of those MPs has in part been due
`to attempts by the host processor manufacturers to augment
`the general-purpose (GP) processor with multimedia
`extensions. Regardless, PCs combined with MPs offer
`exceptional performance and flexibility.
`
`Definition of Media Processors
`
`We define a Media Processor (MP) as a chip with a highly
`specialized architecture for real-time processing of media.
`Due to the complexity of the signal and graphics processing
`needed, MPs must utilize significant parallelism and
`architectural optimizations to achieve real-time processing.
`
`The media functions include the generation of sight and
`sound from audio, video, imaging, 3D graphics, and
`communication signals and data. Applications include soft
`versions of DVD, DTV, All-Format Decode (AFD), 3D
`games, H.323 and modems. A MP will also contain a real-
`time operating system (RTOS) for effective control and
`scheduling of time critical events, such as for video, audio
`and graphics synchronization.
`
`offer an “effective” balance of functionality between:
`Multiple and byte-wise pixel or sample processing
`for audio and video,
`floating-point geometry processing for 3D graphics,
`bit-wise or look-up table processing for MPEG
`and/or 3D graphics,
`for block or chunk
`memory cache models
`processing for MPEG and 3D,
`general-purpose processing,
`streaming of data on and off the processor/memory
`with programmable dimension and stride,
`Standard input/output like USB, 656, I’C.
`
`Advantage of Programmable over Hardwired
`
`MPs offer fully programmable solutions, in comparison to
`fixed-function alternatives, with sufficient computational
`power for simultaneous acceleration of
`the media
`functions. One chip can replace an assortment of fixed-
`function chips. This programmable approach provides a
`key differentiator in that it allows the designer or end-user
`to adapt or change the product with evolving requirements,
`protocols or standards. Application Programmer Interfaces
`(APIs) and High-Level Languages (HLL) like C greatly
`enable these changes, as well as provide portability of the
`code to future products and self-documenting nature of
`software (in comparison to embedded hardware). On the
`other hand, hardwired or fixed-function solution usually
`requires time-consuming hardware spins to adapt to
`changes, as well does not encourage the use of self-
`documentation from design-to-design like software does.
`MPs also have an assortment of electrical interfaces, such
`as PCI or AGP busses and audiolvideo input and output
`ports, thereby simplifying design of a final product since
`no special ASICs need to be developed.
`
`0-7803-4357-3/98/ $10.00 01998 IEEE
`
`146
`
`SAMSUNG-1032
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`Comparison of Cost for Soft vs. Hardwired
`
`A programmable solution can be achieved with similar, or
`even lower, silicon cost as that of a fixed-function solution,
`however maintaining the flexibility for user-programmed
`change. We can see this by looking at the architectural
`differences between the two solutions in Figure 1.
`
`With a soft solution users can balance the utilization of the
`processor’s cycles between different applications as a
`function of need. For example, a single poor-quality video
`channel could be improved using additional cycles for
`picture quality enhancements via post-processing algorithms
`at one time, whereas another time, a 2-channel simultaneous
`decoder, with Internet access via the soft modem, could
`execute, presenting a dynamic resource allocation challenge.
`
`c
`
`Media Processo
`
`Hardwired, Fixed-Function
`Programmable Media
`Processor Solution
`Solution
`(Many Chips & Data Memories)
`(Single Memory Bank)
`Figure I . Comparing SofhYare to Fixed Hardware Solutions
`
`The Fixed Hardware solution uses more chips, more
`interconnecting signals, more power, and custom interfaces.
`Holding all factors constant (functionality, clock speed,
`process), the MP solution will have less system cost. If the
`MP architecture and software is optimized for nearly full
`utilization of data paths and the computing elements, it will
`have cost savings over the fixed schedule Fixed Hardware,
`which wastes the resource when not in use. Essentially the
`dynamic nature of applications used and the data leads to
`inefficient utilization in a Fixed solution, whereas in a
`programmable solution, the resources can be allocated
`efficiently. Another difference could be the cost of code
`memory and the cost of buffer memory to handle latency
`associated with dynamic scheduling.
`However, as
`memories decline in cost, this has much less impact.
`
`Key Elements of Media Processors
`
`the degree of programmability or
`MPs vary by
`customization possible, as well the time for a developer to
`apply the processor to solve a problem. The alternative,
`hardwired solutions generally require many months to
`convert an algorithm into working hardware, and even
`longer if a change is then required to that hardware once
`actual use begins. This happens quite often in imaging and
`
`to
`video systems due
`the changing of application
`requirements, piartly due to the wide variation of source
`images and error conditions possible in real situations,
`which can v;ary more
`than
`the original system
`specification.
`
`Some early mledia processing chips required detailed
`microcoding to port imaging algorithms onto the processor.
`This would consume many months of design by
`programmers proficient in that coding language. Other
`MPs have C compilers for each of their multiple internal
`processors (sometimes heterogeneous), however to fully
`utilize the power of the processor, one must manually
`partitioning algorithms to each processor for parallelism
`without the help of the compiler and/or resort to writing the
`code in assembly language. While not as cumbersome as
`microcode, this method also requires much skill.
`
`More recent MPs featuring VLIW architectures (with
`instruction level parallelism and partitioned operations)
`have C compilers to improve the user’s ability to map the
`algorithms onto the processor. However, coding efficiency
`(measure by the resultant speed of the processor when
`using compiler generated code) has not been as good as
`expected. Old compiler technology had difficulty finding
`parallelism and accurately mapping the application code to
`run on multiple execution units in parallel. Next-
`generation MPs; with advanced compiler technology and
`architectures, which map well to the compiler, are in
`development, These compilers will perform functions like
`finding parallelism and assigning functions to individual
`processors and allocating registers. Features include:
`1) Branch elimination with predicated execution,
`2) Software pipelining and loop unrolling,
`3) Media intrinsics for fast execution of DSP & 3D.
`The ultimate advantage of the use of a compiler is that
`when the undeirlying chip changes in future generations,
`the user’s source code can simpIy be re-compiled to adapt
`to the new chip.
`
`Media Processor Performance Trends
`
`MPs range in performance from 2 to 20 billion operations
`per second (BOPS) and 32- to 64-bits in width. Next-
`generation MPs will range up to 30 BOPS and 128-bits.
`This performance permits a multitude of opportunities for
`consumer media markets, including real-time encoders,
`MPEG-4, and nnultiple-channel DTV MPEG decoders.
`
`Conclusions
`
`Media Processors will provide the computational solution
`for consumer products in digital television. Next-
`generation MPs offer improvements in performance and
`cost, while offering even greater flexibility. Soft versions
`of high-definition video decode, video conferencing, and
`3D TV and games become enabled by MPs.
`
`1 47
`
`SAMSUNG-1032
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket