This on Ti's latest News letter:-
MSP430F665x devices provide more memory, analog integration and device
scalability for blood glucose meters, home automation, activity
monitors and low-power wireless applications. These larger memory
resources, pin to pin compatible with the MSP430F663x (256k Flash),
enable MSP430 devices to easily manage wireless protocols, such as
Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi® and ZigBee®, making it a companion
microcontroller for TI´s broad portfolio of wireless connectivity
applications.
Most of the applications quoted, with the exception perhaps of bloated Comms
protocols, can readily run in 32K or less, why on earth aren't Ti
concentrating on what made the MSP430 so great. Low Power, why not shoot for
much lower power rather than chase the high memory end of the market that is
already saturated by cheaper 32 bit ARM products? That was the MSP430's
niche. I guess the original designers of the MSP430 are no longer involved and
the Ti corporate DSP mentality has come back to the fore.
Dammit!
Al
RANT
Started by ●March 10, 2013
Reply by ●March 10, 20132013-03-10
> This on Ti's latest News letter:-
>
> MSP430F665x devices provide more memory, analog integration and device
> scalability for blood glucose meters, home automation, activity
> monitors and low-power wireless applications. These larger memory
> resources, pin to pin compatible with the MSP430F663x (256k Flash),
> enable MSP430 devices to easily manage wireless protocols, such as
> Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi® and ZigBee®, making it a companion
> microcontroller for TI´s broad portfolio of wireless connectivity
> applications.
>
> Most of the applications quoted, with the exception perhaps of bloated
> Comms protocols, can readily run in 32K or less, why on earth aren't Ti
> concentrating on what made the MSP430 so great. Low Power, why not shoot
> for much lower power rather than chase the high memory end of the market
> that is already saturated by cheaper 32 bit ARM products? That was the
> MSP430's niche. I guess the original designers of the MSP430 are no longer
> involved and the Ti corporate DSP mentality has come back to the fore.
>
> Dammit!
Look, you can't even buy some TI MSP430 or Stellaris silicon. Who the f*ck
cares? Well, we have a customer using an MSP430F5336 that has some problem
or other, and we can't even order bloody silicon to figure out if it is a
tools issue. And we have another customer that is looking at the thick end
of 50k for running homologation again, after a redesign, because he can't
get hold of Stellaris devices.
TI must be in a serious world of pain.
I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
>
> MSP430F665x devices provide more memory, analog integration and device
> scalability for blood glucose meters, home automation, activity
> monitors and low-power wireless applications. These larger memory
> resources, pin to pin compatible with the MSP430F663x (256k Flash),
> enable MSP430 devices to easily manage wireless protocols, such as
> Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi® and ZigBee®, making it a companion
> microcontroller for TI´s broad portfolio of wireless connectivity
> applications.
>
> Most of the applications quoted, with the exception perhaps of bloated
> Comms protocols, can readily run in 32K or less, why on earth aren't Ti
> concentrating on what made the MSP430 so great. Low Power, why not shoot
> for much lower power rather than chase the high memory end of the market
> that is already saturated by cheaper 32 bit ARM products? That was the
> MSP430's niche. I guess the original designers of the MSP430 are no longer
> involved and the Ti corporate DSP mentality has come back to the fore.
>
> Dammit!
Look, you can't even buy some TI MSP430 or Stellaris silicon. Who the f*ck
cares? Well, we have a customer using an MSP430F5336 that has some problem
or other, and we can't even order bloody silicon to figure out if it is a
tools issue. And we have another customer that is looking at the thick end
of 50k for running homologation again, after a redesign, because he can't
get hold of Stellaris devices.
TI must be in a serious world of pain.
I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
Reply by ●March 10, 20132013-03-10
I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I
don't
use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much
smaller than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low
power push, other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out
another low power device if I can find one physically small enough.
Al
On 11/03/2013 12:14 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
>> This on Ti's latest News letter:-
>>
>> MSP430F665x devices provide more memory, analog integration and device
>> scalability for blood glucose meters, home automation, activity
>> monitors and low-power wireless applications. These larger memory
>> resources, pin to pin compatible with the MSP430F663x (256k Flash),
>> enable MSP430 devices to easily manage wireless protocols, such as
>> Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi® and ZigBee®, making it a companion
>> microcontroller for TI´s broad portfolio of wireless connectivity
>> applications.
>>
>> Most of the applications quoted, with the exception perhaps of bloated
>> Comms protocols, can readily run in 32K or less, why on earth aren't Ti
>> concentrating on what made the MSP430 so great. Low Power, why not shoot
>> for much lower power rather than chase the high memory end of the market
>> that is already saturated by cheaper 32 bit ARM products? That was the
>> MSP430's niche. I guess the original designers of the MSP430 are no longer
>> involved and the Ti corporate DSP mentality has come back to the fore.
>>
>> Dammit!
> Look, you can't even buy some TI MSP430 or Stellaris silicon. Who the f*ck
> cares? Well, we have a customer using an MSP430F5336 that has some problem
> or other, and we can't even order bloody silicon to figure out if it is a
> tools issue. And we have another customer that is looking at the thick end
> of 50k for running homologation again, after a redesign, because he can't
> get hold of Stellaris devices.
>
> TI must be in a serious world of pain.
>
> I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
> that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
> MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
>
use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much
smaller than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low
power push, other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out
another low power device if I can find one physically small enough.
Al
On 11/03/2013 12:14 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
>> This on Ti's latest News letter:-
>>
>> MSP430F665x devices provide more memory, analog integration and device
>> scalability for blood glucose meters, home automation, activity
>> monitors and low-power wireless applications. These larger memory
>> resources, pin to pin compatible with the MSP430F663x (256k Flash),
>> enable MSP430 devices to easily manage wireless protocols, such as
>> Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi® and ZigBee®, making it a companion
>> microcontroller for TI´s broad portfolio of wireless connectivity
>> applications.
>>
>> Most of the applications quoted, with the exception perhaps of bloated
>> Comms protocols, can readily run in 32K or less, why on earth aren't Ti
>> concentrating on what made the MSP430 so great. Low Power, why not shoot
>> for much lower power rather than chase the high memory end of the market
>> that is already saturated by cheaper 32 bit ARM products? That was the
>> MSP430's niche. I guess the original designers of the MSP430 are no longer
>> involved and the Ti corporate DSP mentality has come back to the fore.
>>
>> Dammit!
> Look, you can't even buy some TI MSP430 or Stellaris silicon. Who the f*ck
> cares? Well, we have a customer using an MSP430F5336 that has some problem
> or other, and we can't even order bloody silicon to figure out if it is a
> tools issue. And we have another customer that is looking at the thick end
> of 50k for running homologation again, after a redesign, because he can't
> get hold of Stellaris devices.
>
> TI must be in a serious world of pain.
>
> I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
> that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
> MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
>
Reply by ●March 10, 20132013-03-10
> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy
anything yet, but then I don't
> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much smaller
> than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low power push,
> other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out another low
> power device if I can find one physically small enough.
Freescale's miniature KL02 chipscale package is now pretty small. I brought
one back from Embedded World.
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=KL02
Might now fit your requirements, but these devices are becoming very, very
small. Infineon's XMC1100 is quite nice too.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much smaller
> than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low power push,
> other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out another low
> power device if I can find one physically small enough.
Freescale's miniature KL02 chipscale package is now pretty small. I brought
one back from Embedded World.
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=KL02
Might now fit your requirements, but these devices are becoming very, very
small. Infineon's XMC1100 is quite nice too.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
Reply by ●March 10, 20132013-03-10
Thanks for that Paul, I'll take a look. I must admit I haven't looked
at
Freescale since they were Motorola in the HC11/12 era.
Al
On 11/03/2013 12:32 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
>> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I don't
>> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much smaller
>> than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low power push,
>> other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out another low
>> power device if I can find one physically small enough.
> Freescale's miniature KL02 chipscale package is now pretty small. I brought
> one back from Embedded World.
>
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=KL02
>
> Might now fit your requirements, but these devices are becoming very, very
> small. Infineon's XMC1100 is quite nice too.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
>
Freescale since they were Motorola in the HC11/12 era.
Al
On 11/03/2013 12:32 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
>> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I don't
>> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much smaller
>> than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low power push,
>> other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out another low
>> power device if I can find one physically small enough.
> Freescale's miniature KL02 chipscale package is now pretty small. I brought
> one back from Embedded World.
>
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=KL02
>
> Might now fit your requirements, but these devices are becoming very, very
> small. Infineon's XMC1100 is quite nice too.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> SolderCore Development Platform http://www.soldercore.com
>
Reply by ●March 10, 20132013-03-10
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Onestone wrote:
> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I don't
> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much
> smaller than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low
> power push, other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out
> another low power device if I can find one physically small enough.
TI have been touting Wolverine as their future of low power, so I am
not sure it is fair to say that TI have abandoned their low power
push. I just hit up TI's website to check the current status of
samples availability, and found this:
http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr5969
Surprisingly enough, I was able to add one to my samples cart.
-p.
> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I don't
> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much
> smaller than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low
> power push, other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out
> another low power device if I can find one physically small enough.
TI have been touting Wolverine as their future of low power, so I am
not sure it is fair to say that TI have abandoned their low power
push. I just hit up TI's website to check the current status of
samples availability, and found this:
http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr5969
Surprisingly enough, I was able to add one to my samples cart.
-p.
Reply by ●March 10, 20132013-03-10
I ordered samples a couple of weeks ago, but have heard nothing yet.
Wolverine is really 2 products, the 57 and the 59. For me the 57 is
useless, too many major flaws and higher low power consumption than
existing products. You'd only benefit from the lower active current in a
high duty cycle design, so not truly low power. The 59 series is
somewhat better, and has a lot of nice features too, but not really
enough yet to convince me that they are goign to head this way
generally, since they have brought out far more big memory high current
devices than useful FRAM parts over the last 2 years. The 59 series FRAM
is quoted at 100uA/MHz, but the data sheet doesn't specify at what
voltage, whereas the original 1121 was quoted as 160uA/MHz at 2.2V with
LPM3 of 0.8uA and LPM4 of 0.1uA. The most commonly used low power mode
for me is LPM3, and this is what really sets your mean current in a low
power system, there is little difference between 0.7 and 0.8uA, but the
wake up times are significantly longer than the 1121, and most of the 2
series that I use. For example a 250us wake up from their LPM3.5 RTC
only mode is slower than I could process a software RTC, and send a
couple of hundred bytes across an SPI link. All in all, for a sensor
simple sensor system, for example, using low power mode between samples,
and, say sampling at 50Hz you' could be better off with a standard MSP430.
Al
On 11/03/2013 2:42 AM, Peter Johansson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Onestone wrote:
>
>> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I don't
>> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much
>> smaller than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low
>> power push, other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out
>> another low power device if I can find one physically small enough.
> TI have been touting Wolverine as their future of low power, so I am
> not sure it is fair to say that TI have abandoned their low power
> push. I just hit up TI's website to check the current status of
> samples availability, and found this:
>
> http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr5969
>
> Surprisingly enough, I was able to add one to my samples cart.
>
> -p.
>
Wolverine is really 2 products, the 57 and the 59. For me the 57 is
useless, too many major flaws and higher low power consumption than
existing products. You'd only benefit from the lower active current in a
high duty cycle design, so not truly low power. The 59 series is
somewhat better, and has a lot of nice features too, but not really
enough yet to convince me that they are goign to head this way
generally, since they have brought out far more big memory high current
devices than useful FRAM parts over the last 2 years. The 59 series FRAM
is quoted at 100uA/MHz, but the data sheet doesn't specify at what
voltage, whereas the original 1121 was quoted as 160uA/MHz at 2.2V with
LPM3 of 0.8uA and LPM4 of 0.1uA. The most commonly used low power mode
for me is LPM3, and this is what really sets your mean current in a low
power system, there is little difference between 0.7 and 0.8uA, but the
wake up times are significantly longer than the 1121, and most of the 2
series that I use. For example a 250us wake up from their LPM3.5 RTC
only mode is slower than I could process a software RTC, and send a
couple of hundred bytes across an SPI link. All in all, for a sensor
simple sensor system, for example, using low power mode between samples,
and, say sampling at 50Hz you' could be better off with a standard MSP430.
Al
On 11/03/2013 2:42 AM, Peter Johansson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Onestone wrote:
>
>> I must admit I haven't been unable to buy anything yet, but then I don't
>> use anything bigger than a 2274 in most designs, and usually much
>> smaller than that, but this shows me that Ti have abandoned their low
>> power push, other than perhaps the FRAM stuff, so it's time to haul out
>> another low power device if I can find one physically small enough.
> TI have been touting Wolverine as their future of low power, so I am
> not sure it is fair to say that TI have abandoned their low power
> push. I just hit up TI's website to check the current status of
> samples availability, and found this:
>
> http://www.ti.com/product/msp430fr5969
>
> Surprisingly enough, I was able to add one to my samples cart.
>
> -p.
>
Reply by ●March 11, 20132013-03-11
"Paul Curtis" :
> I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
> that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
> MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
>
Are there any ARM devices that are able to operate at 10uA (or less) with
fast wake-up? I ony know www.energymicro.com
Standard ARM's need several milliseconds to start up from RTC....
M.
> I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
> that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
> MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
>
Are there any ARM devices that are able to operate at 10uA (or less) with
fast wake-up? I ony know www.energymicro.com
Standard ARM's need several milliseconds to start up from RTC....
M.
Reply by ●March 11, 20132013-03-11
There are a few now, but there are also a lot of other low power micro
suppliers out there offering similar or better performance than the
MSP430 at lower cost.
Al
On 12/03/2013 6:43 AM, Matthias Weingart wrote:
> "Paul Curtis" :
>
>> I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
>> that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
>> MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
>>
> Are there any ARM devices that are able to operate at 10uA (or less) with
> fast wake-up? I ony know www.energymicro.com
> Standard ARM's need several milliseconds to start up from RTC....
>
> M.
>
>
suppliers out there offering similar or better performance than the
MSP430 at lower cost.
Al
On 12/03/2013 6:43 AM, Matthias Weingart wrote:
> "Paul Curtis" :
>
>> I'm not sure a 512K MSP430 makes any sense whatsoever given the ARM devices
>> that are available now -- it's just for customers that have grown up with
>> MSP430, and know its peripherals and architecture well.
>>
> Are there any ARM devices that are able to operate at 10uA (or less) with
> fast wake-up? I ony know www.energymicro.com
> Standard ARM's need several milliseconds to start up from RTC....
>
> M.
>
>
Reply by ●March 12, 20132013-03-12
