Thanks for your perseverence. You'd think they could have just listed that stuff back at the beginning. Real engineers enjoy reading specs even more than we enjoy unscrewing things.
It certainly does sound like a lot of processing power. I don't think we're told what the retail price will be. Like you, I have to wonder what it would take to write efficient code for something like that. Plus, once you managed to port some major computationally-intensive app to that platform, you'd want to be sure there was going to be an upgrade path for the next decade or so to give you a return on your investment.
Your post made me force myself to click thru the full 41 slides. Your question was answered partially on slide 26: <pasted here >
2304 Stream Processors running at 863 MHz Base / 900 MHz Boost
3 GB GDDR5 RAM running at 6,008 MHz
PCI Express 3.0, SLI-compatible
Then, additionally on slide 31 :
two sticks of Crucial Ballistix Sport 8 GB DDR3 (PC3 12800) RAM. At 16 GB
Finally, to the core: (on page 35) :
Intel Core i5-4570
And then, onto the second board, (on page 37)
an NXP LCP11U24F 32-bit ARM Cortex-M0
Whew! That's a lot of processing power-!! At last count, that's (4) CPUs !! To me, this doesn't seem like very elegant architecture; on the contrary, it sounds more like throwing components at a system to increase power. But what do I know-?
I don't disagree that engineers are curous to see how other engineers have designed things. When Fluke bought an early production model of HP's latest systems voltmeter years ago, the Fluke engineers opened it up and found a signed drawing of the HP engineering team inside of it. Somehow HP sales and engineering figured out which one was going to Fluke and they knew what the Fluke guys were going to do with it.
That said, real engineers are not fascinated with 20+ pictures of how the case comes apart. We don't want some kind of industrial design strip-tease. If there's something particularly clever about the packaging, which there isn't in this case, it's worth noting. But what we have here is basically a computer. Like most computers, it's in a box. What differentiates it from other computers and makes it interesting is its functionality and cost, with packaging in third place.
The slideshow is one way to reach those with the "millisecond attention span", as well as those who don't read much, so it does have a bit of value. Some more detailed shots of exactly how others solved some design challenges would raise the value a bit, but that might be construed as giving away trade secrets. The fact is that many good engineers benefit from seeing the work of other good engineers. Genius bosts genius, it seems, both in some design teams and in seeing the solutions created by others. That is the lure of "ideas for design" and some of the other very popular sections of some of the electronic-oriented engineering publications. And, seeing what others have done is one big reason to read "Design News", isn't it?
Likewise, I also was visualizing some new and interesting item using actual steam. A bit of a letdown there, but after all, this is about :neat computer stuff", not some of those other engineering areas. And it probably could do a good job as an all around engineering workstation, even though the intention is for it to be a powerful toy that is all play and no real benefit to anybody, except for playing games. BUT somebody is making a profit and employing engineers and techs to put these things togather. So the rest of us benefit a bit.
But I can't imagine doing a design of any size with a controller like that.
Thank you for all that good information. If there's a well-written article on ifixit, it would have been good to include a prominent link at the start.
I agree about the dearth of serious CAD software for linux. I'm no expert on computer architecture, but it seems like everything that's good for gaming should be good for solid-modeling, computational fluid dynamics, or even SPICE. I'm not seeing anything about pricing, but if it's in the game console range (~$300), it would sure be nice to put it to real engineering use somehow.
And yeah, the wood box is pretty cool. Now if they put it in a nailed-together crate with rope handles on the ends and UN 1.4 stickers on the sides, that would really get some attention.
I agree on the slideshow format - over about 7 pages and I don'na wanna bother. However, these iFixit teardown slideshows all have a corresponding (almost) proper article at iFixit.com itself. Go to ifixit.com, scroll all the way down to the bottom of the main page and select "Teardowns" in the lower left corner.
To attempt to answer your questions, it's a pretty nice Linux, ahem, I mean SteamOS PC. It has an NVidia GTX-780 GPU (nice), 16 GB RAM, Intel Core i5-4570 CPU at 3.2 GHz, 1 TB Seagate SSHD, 2 x USB 2.0 and 4 x USB 3.0. Wi-Fi with external antenna connection. Other stuff too, but that's a simple summary. Probably about the equivalent of a $1000-$1200 PC in a compact unit.
"How does it connect/expand?" The Ethernet, Wi-Fi and USB ports seem to be about it, though the GPU, SSHD and even the mini-ATX motherboard could be upgraded.
"Would it make a good web server?" It would make a decent personal web or media server.
"Encryption engine?" Capabilities that you can conjecture from the CPU, GPU and Linux.
"CAD system?" Actually, yes. I think it would, but not for Windows only CAD applications unless you installed Windows on it (which one should be able to do easily).
I clicked through half the slide show and gave up. Why can't we have a text summary that provides an overview of what this "steam machine" does? Presumably it's a small computer optimized for games and apparently it runs linux nicely. What are its technical specs (RAM, flash, hard drive, clock(s), core count, etc)? What's it particularly good at? How does it connect/expand? Would it make a good web server? Encryption engine? CAD system? Presumably a mere toy wouldn't be worth an article like this.
The slide show format is an intensely tedious way to "read" an article. I've taken apart (and designed and built) enough electronics that don't get any visceral thrill from removing a screw to see what's inside something. Photographs should be included to illustrate an article. We shouldn't have to deduce the article from looking at photos. This is just lazy "journalism".
Design magazines should be about how to design things, not about how to take apart what someobody else designed. Are so few readers actual creative design engineers these days? Sure, it's fun to see how things work, but these "teardown" articles seem to be all about the mechanical construction, which is of very secondary importance with a sophisticated electronic device. The fact that the packaging looks cool may be worth a brief passing mention, but not 30% of the article.
Perhaps if I'd clicked all the way to the 40th screen I would have been able to read something about what this computer actually does. But I have work to do.
Last year at Hannover Fair, lots of people were talking about Industry 4.0. This is a concept that seems to have a different name in every region. I’ve been referring to it as the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), not to be confused with the plain old Internet of Things (IoT). Others refer to it as the Connected Industry, the smart factory concept, M2M, data extraction, and so on.
Some of the biggest self-assembled building blocks and structures made from engineered DNA have been developed by researchers at Harvard's Wyss Institute. The largest, a hexagonal prism, is one-tenth the size of an average bacterium.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.