Are detectors really this slow?

[languy99]

I did some research on my pro 58 cpu to find out how fast it is, after some digging I found out that it uses a 6 Mhz cpu. All I can say is , really??? With todays technology I would image at least a 100Mhz cpu, hell smart phones today have 1Ghz cpus in them, why is this important, because with a faster cpu it can sample a given time frame more times and the chance of catching a QT increases exponentially and so on.

[Divewjason]

That is pretty slow, but even so, I would think that other radar detector have similar speeds. I'm pretty sure this isn't unusual for a radar detector.

I'm guessing that if the processor is smaller than what would be considered the norm for a computer that it is much more expensive. That would make a 1 ghz processor pretty expensive for the size needed for a radar detector thus raising the price of the unit.

That's just a guess though.

[kpatz]

Note that that is the main CPU, that handles things like the display, buttons, alerts. I don't know about the Whistler but some RDs use separate, faster DSP chips to do the actual signal analysis.

[STiMULi]

There are low power devices that use 533 MHz why not a RD. Put enough Memory and CPU in 9500 and it could be a nav system (given they connect that USB to screen or screen controller of some sort.

6MHz...


Is that for real?

[Divewjason]

There are low power devices that use 533 MHz why not a RD. Put enough Memory and CPU in 9500 and it could be a nav system (given they connect that USB to screen or screen controller of some sort.

6MHz...


Is that for real?

What Kpatz said may have something to do with it. Maybe Michael B will chime in and explain it.

[swarga]

I did some research on my pro 58 cpu to find out how fast it is, after some digging I found out that it uses a 6 Mhz cpu. All I can say is , really??? With todays technology I would image at least a 100Mhz cpu, hell smart phones today have 1Ghz cpus in them, why is this important, because with a faster cpu it can sample a given time frame more times and the chance of catching a QT increases exponentially and so on.

MHz cost money; faster CPUs cost more, which is why they use the slowest one they can possibly get away with.

Also, a faster microcontroller doesn't necessarily translate to faster sweeps. If the radio circuitry can only sweep a band once per second, it doesn't matter if you have a 3GHz quad-core CPU attached to it; it's still going to sweep the band at 1Hz. Another reason not to waste the money on a faster micro.

[Michael B]

Also, a faster microcontroller doesn't necessarily translate to faster sweeps. If the radio circuitry can only sweep a band once per second, it doesn't matter if you have a 3GHz quad-core CPU attached to it; it's still going to sweep the band at 1Hz. Another reason not to waste the money on a faster micro.

Correct

[TRun]

Has anyone tried to turn a 286 computer into a RD??

[languy99]

I did some research on my pro 58 cpu to find out how fast it is, after some digging I found out that it uses a 6 Mhz cpu. All I can say is , really??? With todays technology I would image at least a 100Mhz cpu, hell smart phones today have 1Ghz cpus in them, why is this important, because with a faster cpu it can sample a given time frame more times and the chance of catching a QT increases exponentially and so on.

MHz cost money; faster CPUs cost more, which is why they use the slowest one they can possibly get away with.

Also, a faster microcontroller doesn't necessarily translate to faster sweeps. If the radio circuitry can only sweep a band once per second, it doesn't matter if you have a 3GHz quad-core CPU attached to it; it's still going to sweep the band at 1Hz. Another reason not to waste the money on a faster micro.

but you could increase your sweep rate or better your hardware to increase the sweep rate and not have a slow CPU as a bottle neck. You could also implement better more complex filtering algorithms and still have a fast responding detector.

[kpatz]

Also, consider the fact that the CPU in an RD doesn't have to run any Microsoft code. Thus, 6 MHz is plenty fast.