Processor speed

[Jim upstate NY]

Does any one know of or remember any processor speeds listed for all the explorer and etrac models?
I know it seems each upgrade they promise a faster processor, but not sure why its not stated in the specs..Is it a secret?

Makes me wonder if they use most of this faster speed for new features and not actual target response time...
I really never noticed faster responses on any of the explorer models. and not sure I am seeing any on the Etrac

While watching and listening to the Etrac, with the auto sens circling the numbers popping up and hearing tone changes in a null etc, I wonder if the majority of that faster processor is being used up just running all these and new background applications, and not being used for the target response?

for some reason 1Mhz comes to mind on the original explorer as bing what they stated when it came out

 

[Erik in NJ]

I never noticed any real speed improvement on my SE over my original XS. 1 Mhz seems pretty slow as my old Apple II+ back in 1982 was driven at that speed. Not sure what microprocessor they're using, but hope they made a wise choice and that they're either programming in assembler or C. Would be nice if someone that's opened their unit could provide some better info. Jim, try calling Minelab directly and see if you can get any info from their engineers.

 

[king-ghidorah]

I never noticed any real speed improvement on my SE over my original XS. 1 Mhz seems pretty slow as my old Apple II+ back in 1982 was driven at that speed. Not sure what microprocessor they're using, but hope they made a wise choice and that they're either programming in assembler or C. Would be nice if someone that's opened their unit could provide some better info. Jim, try calling Minelab directly and see if you can get any info from their engineers.

The E-TRAC has a 32 bit 48MHz processor so my lowly guess would be that the SE's processor is running at least half that speed if not more, maybe 18-20MHz. Funny how Microsoft was always taunting 64 bit, 64 bit, more power, blah,blah blah but most businesses that sell computers have the 64 bit chips in them now BUT they only supply you with a 32 bit OS,heehee. You want 64 bit that will cost you hundreds more unless you get Windows 64 bit which I recommend which we only set you back about $75.

 

[jimpugh]

of coarse if you go slow you may not notice much except how fast the depth gauge calibrates for each pass!

 

[brissietex]

In simplistic terms, not all processors are created equal and speeds are relative only to their specific lines of processors. You can have different processing lines that are slower in actual speed but more efficient in processing which makes the relative speeds quicker than the faster processing lines. Case in point...Intel Pentium IV vs Intel CoreDuo processors. Intel Pentium IV lines have higher raw processor speeds but are highly inefficient due to a higher die size requiring lots of power which translates to higher thermal heat whereas the CoreDuo series is a smaller die which requires less power which translates to lower heat and allows for multi-processor on a single die. The efficiencies reward for this comparison would go to the CoreDuo line and it is much more snappy esp when pair with appropriate software (another component for speed and should never be underestimated).

All this discussion about processor speeds between models is really irrelevant because the processors are unknown for the most part and the software written for these processors play a bigger part than the hardware themselves. Kinda like running Windows 3.1 on a modern system...it may be snappy but it also defeats the purpose of going to a modern system ie. to utilise modern software features such as 3d graphics.

In essence, the processor on any model of metal detector is only as good as the software written for it.

cheers...Keith

 

[king-ghidorah]

We know all processors are not created equal but we are dealing with a simple piece of hardware in this sense so for them putting in a faster processor which Minelab has acknowledged has contributed to faster responses, quicker menu,ability to handle more computations faster has made a difference. I do agree with you on the quality of software coding but to have it make this much more of an impact when it's a very basic GUI is hardly an issue I think.

 

[Shambler]

I'm confident the amount of information needing processed in a metal detector is a little less than that needing processed while playing Half Life 2 on a PC.

 

[Erik in NJ]

Keith, Good post, but I think we can make some simple assumptions about the Explorer/E-Trac hardware. I'm assuming that there's a lot of DSP going on and a lot of number crunching of the data coming back from the coil. As you mentioned the user interface is essentially very basic. We know that the unit produces sounds faster than it updates the screen with the cursor.so that leads me to believe that there may be different chips responsible for each function. The problem is that the cursor update has always been too slow and lagging the audio. So a faster processor and/or more efficient programming would make a difference. The cursor has never had a "snappy" feel to it which would have made for a much better unit. I also notice the cursor often jumping all over the screen which may hve been a problem with the older algorithm. I'm hoping the new mapping to the 12-line has gone a long way to rectifying the cursor jumping problem.

I'd imagine that the "conductive" readings were and are still probably mapped somewhat linearly from what they are "read" from the coil - most detectors rank the various metals in approx the same order and a linear mapping is the most simple. The Explorer added a new "ferrous" axis. The E-Trac obviously has added a new ferrous mapping. There must have been a good reason for it. If that reason was to minimize the jumping cursor issue from the Explorers (remember the cursor usually jumps from right to left or left to right along the old ferrous axis).

I'm fairly certain the Explorer is not using an Intel chip set like the Pentium - probably a much smaller and cheaper processor - so we can probably assume that upgrades to this processor or chip sets will not be as dramatic as the Intel chips that we're seeing in PCs. Personally I'd rather pay the extra $500 dollars for a processor like a Pentium that would really make the E-Trac hum, but I'm sure Minelab has figured that pushing the price point out that far would reduce sales dramatically.

As a software engineer and someone that specializes in high-frequency prop algorithms for investment banks that process market data in real time to generate trading signals - I'd love to know more about the hardware and software that Minelab is employing - heck I'd love to take a crack at really making this unit off the charts.

 

[Jim upstate NY]

so your saying it doesnt matter, yet Minelab announces each machine with a new faster processor, so in other words they lied about any improvement in the explorer models speed?

 

[jbow]

and not much at that. It sometimes jumps diagonally just a little but nothing like the SE did. Mostly though it jumps up and down maybe 10 ferrous numbers.

That is based on one outing...it is a noticable improvement though.... I reckon. I think once we understand this machine we will love it.

J

 

[Erik in NJ]

I think this is what they were trying to fix. I don't think they were happy with the old ferrous mapping and I think it caused the cursor to move so much when detecting with an open screen. I've always found it very frustrating and only rely on the cursor about 20% of the time - sounds 80%. I'm hoping the E-Trac is a better multi-media unit.