|
Has anyone here ever come across the new ARM micros that TI came out with (supposedly)? Does anyone know how real the TI parts are? If they are, what makes the SAM7 better? I have been having trouble finding comparison data. Also, I have heard of people using this IP2000 chip from Ubicom. It is RISC-based like an MSP430 from TI, but has two SerDes and a MAC+PHY. Any rumblings about Atmel adding these features in the SAM7X family? Thank you! Any information would be most helpful. |
|
|
SAM7 vs TMS470 vs IP2K
Started by ●February 10, 2005
Reply by ●February 10, 20052005-02-10
|
--- In , "Tony Ambrosini" <tambrosini77@y...> wrote: > > > Has anyone here ever come across the new ARM micros that TI came out > with (supposedly)? Does anyone know how real the TI parts are? If > they are, what makes the SAM7 better? I have been having trouble > finding comparison data. > > Also, I have heard of people using this IP2000 chip from Ubicom. It > is RISC-based like an MSP430 from TI, but has two SerDes and a > MAC+PHY. Any rumblings about Atmel adding these features in the > SAM7X family? The TI parts are real. There is a Yahoo group just for them at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TMS470_ARM They are sampling with people saying they are getting both the 128 and the 256 parts. One difference I know of is that the TI parts have more IO than most of the Atmel, Philips and ADI parts. I have not looked closely enough to analyze the details. I think the TI parts are a bit light for RAM compared to the Flash size, even the 256 KB flash parts only have 12 kB of SRAM. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ADuC_ARM and don't forget the OKI ARM parts... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OKI-ARM-mcus I have not looked at the IP2000 chip, but the older Ubicom parts were just very fast PICs like the microchip parts, same instruction set. The don't have analog IO, and most peripherals are done in software (that's supposed to be why they are so fast). Someone needs to do a comprehensive ARM7 MCU comparison on a web site. Maybe I'll take some time this weekend and do that. |
Reply by ●February 11, 20052005-02-11
|
At 01:18 AM 2/11/05 +0000, Rick Collins wrote: >Someone needs to do a comprehensive ARM7 MCU comparison on a web site. > Maybe I'll take some time this weekend and do that. There are scattered pieces of that on the ARMuC Wiki. It could do with consolidation and updating though. http://www.open-research.org.uk/ARMuC/ Robert " 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself. There are always restrictions, be they legal, genetic, or physical. If you don't believe me, try to chew a radio signal. " Kelvin Throop, III |
Reply by ●February 11, 20052005-02-11
|
Hi, don't know what the 'SerDes' refer to w. respect to the IP2000 (SERDES-functionality is typically part of the PHY, in terms of Ethernet serialization/de-serialization ...). AFAIK - IP2000 doesn't have neither a true Ethernet MAC or PHY in HW; the IP2022 at least (only member of the IP2000 family??), has indeed two hi-speed serial interfaces (=SERDES?). These HSIs can implement one out of several functions: * low-speed(1,5Mbps) USB1.1 * 10Base-T Ethernet (basically Mancester-encoding/decoding) * USART * SPI 10Base-T and USB use differential I/Os, which are implemented on the IP2022 using pairs of ordinary CMOS I/Os. Additionally, a resistor network is necessary on the outside. There are *no* analog functions (except 10-bit ADC) on the devices, which of course make it easier(&cheaper) to manufacture the device in submicron CMOS compared to real 'mixed-signal' devices. This have two implications: a) the solution is sub-optimal compared to devices w. *real* PHYs b) *you* are responsible for more of the design to be IEEE802.3/10Base-T compliant as the PHY is just 'emulated', not device-tested over temperature etc., and the EMAC is likewise emulated in SW. SW-emulation is feasible through the use of HW-assistance(dedicated FIFOs&timers), and a high clock frequency (100MHz, I think ...). IP2000 is a proprietary, 16-bit MCU core, but do have a GNU toolchain. The idea was to make 'ultra-lowcost' wireless (Bluetooth/WLAN) gateways, but I think Ubicom have had little success w. this - there are plenty of competitors doing extremely powerful&integrated devices already (Broadcom, Marvell, Realtek, Connnexant, Globespan-Virata, Micrel/Kendin +++) PS: 'low-speed' USB1.1 can be implemented on most MCUs w. fairly good MIPS/MHz rating, and flexible I/O. An implementation exists for the AVR (ATtiny2313) implemented in assembler - see: http://avrfreaks.net . Current handling capability should be above +/-5mA to drive cables up to 4,5m. 10Base-T OTOH, demand at least +/-15mA unless external transistors etc. should be inferred. I have seen a few attempts, but don't bet on these to work on 250m cable segments ...;-) About SAM7 & Ethernet: ---------------------- The ARMuC wiki doesn't have any *comparisons* (yet) between ARM7 devices AFAIK. However, Atmel *has* been very specific about SAM7 w. Ethernet MAC: at the "Atmel 2005 MCU seminar" recently(here in Scandinavia), they showed presentations on the "SAM7X" family which is identical to the SAM7S, but adds on EMAC & CAN (internal Flash, no EBI). First samples were promised to arrive 'before summer' ... (just like Xmas, that season tend to arrive late with many a semiconductor vendor;-) -Morten > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Ambrosini [mailto:] > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:43 AM > To: > Subject: [BULK] [AT91SAM7] SAM7 vs TMS470 vs IP2K > Importance: Low > > > Has anyone here ever come across the new ARM micros that TI > came out with (supposedly)? Does anyone know how real the TI > parts are? If they are, what makes the SAM7 better? I have > been having trouble finding comparison data. > > Also, I have heard of people using this IP2000 chip from > Ubicom. It is RISC-based like an MSP430 from TI, but has two > SerDes and a > MAC+PHY. Any rumblings about Atmel adding these features in the > SAM7X family? > > Thank you! Any information would be most helpful. > > Yahoo! Groups Links |
Reply by ●February 11, 20052005-02-11
|
Just saw the TI parts yesterday as well as their nice board with JTAG ($399). I have the same question SAMA3 vs the similar TI 470 parts. I am looking at what ever will be easier to get! I like the ATMEL AVR popularity and that is also a big factor in the SAM series for me hoping the ARM stuff gets the same reception! BTW I am very new the the ARM stuff, and will likely use it for an automotive app to replace an aged, unfinished design with the MC68336 part. Any SAM7-A3 Dev boards out yet? Lastly does anyone have PROTEL libs for any of the SAM parts? Thanks Sandy --- In , "Tony Ambrosini" <tambrosini77@y...> wrote: > > > Has anyone here ever come across the new ARM micros that TI came out > with (supposedly)? Does anyone know how real the TI parts are? If > they are, what makes the SAM7 better? I have been having trouble > finding comparison data. > > Also, I have heard of people using this IP2000 chip from Ubicom. It > is RISC-based like an MSP430 from TI, but has two SerDes and a > MAC+PHY. Any rumblings about Atmel adding these features in the > SAM7X family? > > Thank you! Any information would be most helpful. |
Reply by ●February 11, 20052005-02-11
|
On 11 Feb 2005 at 19:44, Sandy wrote: > > > Just saw the TI parts yesterday as well as their nice board with JTAG > ($399). I have the same question SAMA3 vs the similar TI 470 parts. I > am looking at what ever will be easier to get! > > I like the ATMEL AVR popularity and that is also a big factor in the > SAM series for me hoping the ARM stuff gets the same reception! > > BTW I am very new the the ARM stuff, and will likely use it for an > automotive app to replace an aged, unfinished design with the MC68336 > part. If you are from one of the bigger automotive companies, then you can use the Freescale ARMs. They have similar peripherals as the older M68K and coldfire MCUs. Regards Anton Erasmus -- A J Erasmus |
Reply by ●February 12, 20052005-02-12
|
"I like the ATMEL AVR popularity and that is also a big factor in
the SAM series for me hoping the ARM stuff gets the same reception!" I'm an AVR user hoping to add SAM7 ARM to my tool kit soon. I think the only thing stopping the SAM7 being as, or more popular than the AVR is the cost of a programmer (hunderds not tens of dollars). I've been in contact with a few AVR programmer sellers and serveral of them emailed me back saying they were working on some cheap ARMs programmers (less than $100, hopefully less than $30) and they hope to release these in the first half of this year. If this happens a lot of people will suddenly be able to flood into the ARM community and I think the SAM7 will enjoy the support and community as the AVR currently does. Here is hoping, Nigel Sandy wrote: > > Just saw the TI parts yesterday as well as their nice board with JTAG > ($399). I have the same question SAMA3 vs the similar TI 470 parts. I > am looking at what ever will be easier to get! > > I like the ATMEL AVR popularity and that is also a big factor in the > SAM series for me hoping the ARM stuff gets the same reception! > > BTW I am very new the the ARM stuff, and will likely use it for an > automotive app to replace an aged, unfinished design with the MC68336 > part. > > Any SAM7-A3 Dev boards out yet? > > Lastly does anyone have PROTEL libs for any of the SAM parts? > > Thanks > > Sandy > --- In , "Tony Ambrosini" <tambrosini77@y...> > wrote: > > > > > > Has anyone here ever come across the new ARM micros that TI came > out > > with (supposedly)? Does anyone know how real the TI parts are? If > > they are, what makes the SAM7 better? I have been having trouble > > finding comparison data. > > > > Also, I have heard of people using this IP2000 chip from Ubicom. It > > is RISC-based like an MSP430 from TI, but has two SerDes and a > > MAC+PHY. Any rumblings about Atmel adding these features in the > > SAM7X family? > > > > Thank you! Any information would be most helpful. > > > * > > *>. > > -- |
Reply by ●February 12, 20052005-02-12
|
The OLIMEX ARM wiggler clone costs 20 USD and has been available for over 1 year. Michael > "I like the ATMEL AVR popularity and that is also a big factor in the > SAM series for me hoping the ARM stuff gets the same reception!" > > I'm an AVR user hoping to add SAM7 ARM to my tool kit soon. I think the > only thing stopping the > SAM7 being as, or more popular than the AVR is the cost of a programmer > (hunderds not tens of dollars). > I've been in contact with a few AVR programmer sellers and serveral of > them emailed me back saying they were working on some cheap ARMs > programmers (less than $100, hopefully less than $30) and they hope to > release these in the first half of this year. > > If this happens a lot of people will suddenly be able to flood into the > ARM community and I think the SAM7 will enjoy the support and community > as the AVR currently does. > > Here is hoping, > Nigel > Sandy wrote: > > > > > Just saw the TI parts yesterday as well as their nice board with JTAG > > ($399). I have the same question SAMA3 vs the similar TI 470 parts. I > > am looking at what ever will be easier to get! > > > > I like the ATMEL AVR popularity and that is also a big factor in the > > SAM series for me hoping the ARM stuff gets the same reception! > > > > BTW I am very new the the ARM stuff, and will likely use it for an > > automotive app to replace an aged, unfinished design with the MC68336 > > part. > > > > Any SAM7-A3 Dev boards out yet? > > > > Lastly does anyone have PROTEL libs for any of the SAM parts? > > > > Thanks > > > > Sandy > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Tony Ambrosini" <tambrosini77@y...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Has anyone here ever come across the new ARM micros that TI came > > out > > > with (supposedly)? Does anyone know how real the TI parts are? If > > > they are, what makes the SAM7 better? I have been having trouble > > > finding comparison data. > > > > > > Also, I have heard of people using this IP2000 chip from Ubicom. It > > > is RISC-based like an MSP430 from TI, but has two SerDes and a > > > MAC+PHY. Any rumblings about Atmel adding these features in the > > > SAM7X family? > > > > > > Thank you! Any information would be most helpful. > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > *>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > * > > *>. |
|
|
Re: SAM7 vs TMS470 vs IP2K
Re: SAM7 vs TMS470 vs IP2K
Reply by ●February 12, 20052005-02-12
|
The problem is not so much the JTAG dongle. Even the official Wiggler is "only" $150 or so, but the programming SW. I went to high and low to try to convince some 3rd party that there are much money to be made in the low cost market, especially once we start shipping our compiler. We tried 3 companies before we found one. Someone at Rowley even said that some people buy their $1000 IDE just to access their flash downloader. So yea, it would be interesting to see how the market plays out in the next year... At 12:25 AM 2/12/2005, Michael Johnson wrote: >The OLIMEX ARM wiggler clone costs 20 USD and has been available for >over 1 year. // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com) |
|
|
Re: SAM7 vs TMS470 vs IP2K
Reply by ●February 12, 20052005-02-12
|
The MacGraigor software is a free download from their website. It can't
be that difficult to connect up flash programming to it..... We now supply a standalone loader with our product so that licenced customers can do programming without having to buy a full user licence to our 495 IDE+Compiler+C Library+Debugger+RTOS package. Michael > The problem is not so much the JTAG dongle. Even the official Wiggler is > "only" $150 or so, but the programming SW. I went to high and low to > try to > convince some 3rd party that there are much money to be made in the low > cost market, especially once we start shipping our compiler. We tried 3 > companies before we found one. Someone at Rowley even said that some > people > buy their $1000 IDE just to access their flash downloader. > > So yea, it would be interesting to see how the market plays out in the > next > year... > > At 12:25 AM 2/12/2005, Michael Johnson wrote: > >The OLIMEX ARM wiggler clone costs 20 USD and has been available for > >over 1 year. > > > > > > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please > use richard at imagecraft.com) > * > > *>. |
|
|
