ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang

Hi

So, considering going the Cortex Mx route for project with new microcontrollers at our firm.

Has anyone a feeling/information about the development speed of the ARM Cortex Mx series vs the rest of the industry?

Meaning, that potentially the same core strategy for the ARM, licensing to toher manufactors mean that they may have faster development speed that others (Microchip, Renesas, whoever not using ARM)

Cheers

Klaus

What I meant to say was that maybe ARM Cortex has potentially faster releases of new devices and a more rapid platform for launching new devices

Cheers 

Klaus

On 5/30/2017 5:11 AM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
> Hi
>
> So, considering going the Cortex Mx route for project with new
> microcontrollers at our firm.
>
> Has anyone a feeling/information about the development speed of the ARM
> Cortex Mx series vs the rest of the industry?
>
> Meaning, that potentially the same core strategy for the ARM, licensing to
> toher manufactors mean that they may have faster development speed that
> others (Microchip, Renesas, whoever not using ARM)

Are you concerned with "number of different part numbers"?  Or, number of
different *cores*?

I.e., are you looking to gauge how quickly the product family evolves
(towards increased "capability")?  Or, diversifies (towards increased
"variety")?

klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote:

> What I meant to say was that maybe ARM Cortex has potentially faster
  releases of new devices and a more rapid platform for launching new
  devices

In my opinion, most work for a new uC must be done with the peripherals. The
Cortex M core is the same with different manufactureres, but the peripherals
are not...

-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 1623569 ------- Fax. 06151 1623305 ---------

Klaus Kragelund wrote on 5/30/2017 8:11 AM:
> Hi
>
> So, considering going the Cortex Mx route for project with new microcontrollers at our firm.
>
> Has anyone a feeling/information about the development speed of the ARM Cortex Mx series vs the rest of the industry?
>
> Meaning, that potentially the same core strategy for the ARM, licensing to toher manufactors mean that they may have faster development speed that others (Microchip, Renesas, whoever not using ARM)

I'm not sure how useful such a comparison would be other than between the 
ARM CM and a few of the lesser popularity processors like the Blackfin for 
example.  Other lines of embedded processors seen to be moving right along 
and keep up with the rest of the industry just fine.

One thing to keep in mind is that while there are many makers of ARM 
processors, there is only one company doing significant development that is 
used by the many makers of ARM chip, ARM!  So I don't see where they are any 
more prolific than anyone else.

Look at the MSP430.  It targets a broad segment of the market and offers 
many, many options with more added continuously.  I'm not sure anyone offers 
more variety than Microchip does with the various PIC offerings.

-- 

Rick C

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 4:31:48 PM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/30/2017 5:11 AM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > So, considering going the Cortex Mx route for project with new
> > microcontrollers at our firm.
> >
> > Has anyone a feeling/information about the development speed of the ARM
> > Cortex Mx series vs the rest of the industry?
> >
> > Meaning, that potentially the same core strategy for the ARM, licensing to
> > toher manufactors mean that they may have faster development speed that
> > others (Microchip, Renesas, whoever not using ARM)
> 
> Are you concerned with "number of different part numbers"?  Or, number of
> different *cores*?
> 
> I.e., are you looking to gauge how quickly the product family evolves
> (towards increased "capability")?  Or, diversifies (towards increased
> "variety")?

I was actually thinking about how much resources ARM has to develop new cores due to their rising marked share, versus the non-ARM vendors

And whether more resources has shown that ARM in fact has a tendency to be more agressive and release new improved cores faster than the non-ARM core developers.

ARM licenses new cores to many vendors, where as non-ARM core vendors typically must pay just for their own core

Cheers

Klaus

On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:32:42 +0000, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

> klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> What I meant to say was that maybe ARM Cortex has potentially faster
>   releases of new devices and a more rapid platform for launching new
>   devices
> 
> In my opinion, most work for a new uC must be done with the peripherals.
> The Cortex M core is the same with different manufactureres, but the
> peripherals are not...

Yup.  You could probably toss any core in the middle, and the work would 
still be to talk to the stuff attached to it.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott wrote on 5/30/2017 11:07 PM:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:32:42 +0000, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>
>> klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What I meant to say was that maybe ARM Cortex has potentially faster
>>   releases of new devices and a more rapid platform for launching new
>>   devices
>>
>> In my opinion, most work for a new uC must be done with the peripherals.
>> The Cortex M core is the same with different manufactureres, but the
>> peripherals are not...
>
> Yup.  You could probably toss any core in the middle, and the work would
> still be to talk to the stuff attached to it.

I think there is some loss of understanding of the question.  ARM and every 
other embedded CPU company is constantly working to improve their CPUs to 
provide the maximum performance available from present technology as best 
suits the applications of their customers.  This is not the same as 
designing new SoCs which vary in the memory size or peripherals on chip. 
There is a TON of work that goes into optimizing CPU designs which is a 
*MUCH* bigger effort than designing some peripherals.  Often the same 
peripherals used on the old family are used on the new family.  The only 
real task is the interconnection.

You are very much trivializing the effort that goes into optimizing a CPU 
architecture.  That is why ARM has such a wide range of CPU performance 
traded off against CPU size and power consumption.  They have taken the time 
and effort to provide good solutions at many points.

-- 

Rick C

On Tue, 30 May 2017 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:


>ARM licenses new cores to many vendors, where as non-ARM core
>vendors typically must pay just for their own core

I think you may have misunderstood the direction of licensing: vendors
making ARM compatible chips pay ARM for that privelege.

ARM has boat loads of money.

George

On 5/30/2017 8:07 AM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 4:31:48 PM UTC+2, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/30/2017 5:11 AM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> So, considering going the Cortex Mx route for project with new
>>> microcontrollers at our firm.
>>>
>>> Has anyone a feeling/information about the development speed of the ARM
>>> Cortex Mx series vs the rest of the industry?
>>>
>>> Meaning, that potentially the same core strategy for the ARM, licensing
>>> to toher manufactors mean that they may have faster development speed
>>> that others (Microchip, Renesas, whoever not using ARM)
>>
>> Are you concerned with "number of different part numbers"?  Or, number of
>> different *cores*?
>>
>> I.e., are you looking to gauge how quickly the product family evolves
>> (towards increased "capability")?  Or, diversifies (towards increased
>> "variety")?
>
> I was actually thinking about how much resources ARM has to develop new
> cores due to their rising marked share, versus the non-ARM vendors

Ans:  lots!  ARM is the 800 pound gorilla.  The old/established vendors
totally botched the embedded market; look at all the effort AMD/Intel
spent trying to one-up each other in the desktop market (despite being
smaller than the embedded!)

Of course, there have been many cases of leaders successfully shooting
themselves in BOTH feet -- so, "past performance is not a predictor of
FUTURE performance"...  <grin>

> And whether more resources has shown that ARM in fact has a tendency to be
> more agressive and release new improved cores faster than the non-ARM core
> developers.
>
> ARM licenses new cores to many vendors, where as non-ARM core vendors
> typically must pay just for their own core

Because ARM wants licensees to WANT their cores (i.e., "products"),
you can probably assume they will keep a sharp focus on the needs
of The Market -- the *whole* market, not just a niche (that some
other vendor might have become complacent addressing).

And, freed from the "investment" in designing/evolving *cores*,
licensees can add value with novel peripherals (incl mixed mode)
that a *single* "core+peripheral" vendor might not be capable
of addressing with their limited product development resources.

But, I think you overlook a more significant issue -- that of
tools/support.  If you are the *only* vendor making a particular
product, then ALL of the tools for that product (and support)
tend to originate with you.  You have to *inspire* third parties
to make an investment in YOUR market.  Those parties have to
gamble on your level of commitment to that market -- will you
suddenly opt to abandon a particular product line in favor of
some other, yet undisclosed?

If you're the only supplier of 2A03's, how likely are you to
invest in a state-of-the-art toolchain -- for your likely
CAPTIVE customer??  How likely are third parties going to be
to try to one-up your offering -- for that captive customer??

So, you have to question the motivation for your query:
are you just looking to hitch your wagon to the firm that
is most likely to develop the most *novel* product?  most
performant?  cheapest?  easiest to develop?  etc.