What's nice about the MX1900J :
1. Low profile with a heat sink that is approximately 15mm high.
2. On board DC power jack (12v) hence no need for a separate DC to DC converter board.
3. 4 x USB 3.0
4. Inclusion of LVDS and GPIO support.
5. Dual Ethernet NIC's
What's different about this board is the inclusion of a Display Port connector instead of HDMI along with VGA output. The BIOS has UEFI 64 and legacy support.
From an application developers view point there's quite a few advantages with the x86 platform. Firstly there is the vast amount of existing software that can run of the 'out of the box' or with minimal changes. Another is the shorter ramp up time between set up/configuration of the BSP/kernel/rootfs to actual application development. Lastly I would also argue that Intel do seem to devote a fair amount of resources to open source development therefore the underlying BSP have the potential to keep up with the latest trends (eg Chromium-ozone, Wayland, Tzien).
The J1900 GPU core supports Intel HD 4000 graphics and there are two linux graphics drivers available for the J1900. The lesser known of the two is the EMGD driver (Embedded Media and Graphics Driver) which are closed sourced binaries that are accessible through user space libraries eg libdrm, mesa and libva. The EMGD documentation targets these drivers for Fedora 18 against Kernel 3.8 and xorg 13.1. Having previously used the EMGD drivers they can be ported to other Linux distros however problems may arise when upgrading or moving to newer distro versions, where ABI breakages prevent this happening or cause stability issues. Intel prefer EMGD as they claim better 3D performance due to the Unified 3D (UFO) Driver.
The alternative to EMGD is the open source (Intel Linux Graphics) driver which can have better support for later kernels and hence usable on a later Linux distro. The downside may be a slight drop in overall performance and possibly stability. I chose to deploy the open source drivers against a very lightweight Ubuntu 14.04 image. The drivers provides OpenGL 3.3 and OpenGL ES 3.0.
The J1900 GPU core has 4 EU (Execution Units) combined with a maximum GPU frequency of 854Mhz. To given you have ideal of where the J1900 fits in the 'food chain' lets compare the FPS (frame per second) rates of running the WebGL Aquarium Demo on a imx6q, J1900 and an older 1037u celeron.
|Number of Fish|
|Platform||Screen Resolution||Frames Per Second|
First lets be clear the above results are to be interpreted as a relative comparison. It should not be used as a primary marker for judging one platform to be superior to the other. Each platform has its merits based on a number of factors. The i.mx6q as expected struggles (even at the lower resolution the rendering was not smooth) mainly due to the lower spec CPU/GPU core , an inefficient X driver and possibly some inefficient code paths in Chromium. The older 1037u dual core celeron performs well due to the higher GPU frequency 1HGz and 6 EU, the trade off is a higher thermal output at 17W. What I couldn't easily account for was the drop off in the FPS rate at 1000 for the J1900. Below are the results from the BabylonJS train demo which is an intensive WebGL application supporting multiple camera angles, CAM_TRAIN being my favourite. What's interesting is that the FPS rate did not deviate when forcing Chromium to use EGL/GLES instead of OpenGL for the J1900.
|Platform||Screen Resolution||Frames per second|
Video playback is available through VAAPI plus libav with h.264/mpeg-2 hardware accelerated encoding/decoding. mplayer and gstreamer 1.0 support is readily available. CPU usage for decoding Big Buck Bunny at 1080p (H.264) was around 13% both in mplayer and using a simple gstreamer 1.0 pipeline. Decoding a 720p usb webcam at 30fps (YUY2) with the output encoded (H.264) to file and displayed to screen using a simple gstreamer pipeline resulted in 15% CPU usage.
Given the recent interest in HTML5 development for embedded platforms I deployed a development build of Chromium (build 39). Chromium is fast becoming the web container of choice given the recent adoption of its engine in QT (QtWebEngine). HTML5test reported a healthy score of 512 out of 555 against Chromium. A test HTML5 page with two embedded video files (playing concurrently) along a with a bunch of images (png) and static text ran without hiccup consuming 20% cpu. I briefly ran some demo HTML5 widgets from zebra , webix and Kendo UI again these ran smoothly. What should be possible with this platform is the ability to create a HTML5 GUI interface that could drive the rest of the application hosted on the same machine.
On the whole the results look very encouraging and the J1900 seems to offer a good trade off for a fan less solution with decent performance. Furthermore it should provide a relatively smooth route for application development. The main consideration is form factor and it is possible to find the J1900 in 3.5" SBC or Q7 form.