<pbreed@netburner.com> skrev i meddelandet news:jrtgs051diu1impej3mcsl8dhvcuq1dtuo@4ax.com...> It's probably cheaper to use a part with built in MAC. > > I like the Motorola MCF5270, 32 bits, 95 mips, 10/100 phy, 64K of SRAM and$7.50 at 10K> > You need to add a Phy and some flash, SDRAM if you want more than 64k, > > We use a Davicom 10/100 PHY it can be had for less than $2 in 10K quantity > I've also seen the ADMTek/Infineon phy quoted in this price range... > > All in all one could get a semiconductior BOM significantly less than$15.00> > > Netburner has Modules, a reference design and a full set of RTOS, tcp andtools for this part> that will be availible in Q1. > > > Paul >-- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This is a personal view which may or may not be share by my Employer Atmel Nordic AB
non-PCI 10/100 Ethernet Controller on the cheap
Started by ●December 20, 2004
Reply by ●December 21, 20042004-12-21
Reply by ●December 21, 20042004-12-21
<pbreed@netburner.com> skrev i meddelandet news:jrtgs051diu1impej3mcsl8dhvcuq1dtuo@4ax.com...> It's probably cheaper to use a part with built in MAC. >> All in all one could get a semiconductior BOM significantly less than$15.00 No, it will be cheaper than $15 with the single chippers and external MAC+PHY. Should also have much smaller footprint. You will be correct when the AT91SAM7X128 appears. An alternative to the AT91SAM7S64 is the AT91FR4042 w 256 kKB SRAM and 512 kB Flash. If 64 kB RAM is used for data, then there is 192 kB SRAM left for fast execution and plenty of space for slow execution. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This is a personal view which may or may not be share by my Employer Atmel Nordic AB
Reply by ●December 22, 20042004-12-22
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:58:53 +0100, "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@NOSPAMatmel.com> wrote:>"sansuikyo" <sansuikyo@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet >news:1103586182.130667.133350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> We are developing a TCP/IP enabled embedded product and are looking for >> a 10/100 non-PCI Ethernet Controller for as close to $3 (budgetary >> pricing) as possible. We've found SMSC and Asix products as low as $8. >> Is there anything out there that might be cheaper? >> > > >Davicom is quite cheap, but I doubt $3. > >Which MCU are you using today? >It is probably cheaper with an integrated MCU+Ethernet. >Next year you will see single chip ARM+Flash+SRAM+Ethernet >so you might want to prepare for this....I have waiting for a AT91R40008 with LAN and/or USB on board. Obviously I need EBI as well. An RTC for low power battery operation would be good too. Fortunately I can wait about a year for production pieces. I wonder if there is there any chance? regards, Johnny.
Reply by ●December 22, 20042004-12-22
> >Davicom is quite cheap, but I doubt $3. > > > >Which MCU are you using today? > >It is probably cheaper with an integrated MCU+Ethernet. > >Next year you will see single chip ARM+Flash+SRAM+Ethernet > >so you might want to prepare for this.... > > I have waiting for a AT91R40008 with LAN and/or USB on board. > Obviously I need EBI as well. An RTC for low power battery operation > would be good too. Fortunately I can wait about a year for production > pieces. I wonder if there is there any chance? >You chance is with the AT91C140 or the AT91RM9200 at the moment None of these have significant amount of SRAM internally, but support SDRAM. Only the AT91RM9200 has USB and the AT91RM9200 "RTC" lacks battery backup. The AT91SAM7X series is currently in design, but production date can only be guessed. My guess is end next year. -- Best Regards Ulf at atmel dot com These comments are intended to be my own opinion and they may, or may not be shared by my employer, Atmel Sweden.
Reply by ●December 23, 20042004-12-23
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:> Maybe, Maybe not, Atmel just licensed a Gigabit > Ethernet PHY and I am trying to find out if it is > applicable to 10/100 as well, and then if it is > cost effective. Would be nice, wouldn't it?Nice - when's it being added to the Mega128? ;-)
Reply by ●December 23, 20042004-12-23
"Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@NOSPAMatmel.com> writes:> Maybe, Maybe not, Atmel just licensed a Gigabit Ethernet PHY > and I am trying to find out if it is applicable to 10/100 as well, > and then if it is cost effective. Would be nice, wouldn't it?It would be nice to see a part like the AT91RM9200, but with an integral PHY. So far the only ARMs with an integral MAC and PHY that I've found are from Micrel and Broadcom. Both require external Flash memory. I'm having a hard time getting the eval board for the Micrel, though chips are readily available through distribution and fairly inexpensive even in small quantities. Broadcom appears to not want to sell chips except in large OEM quantities, and technical documentation appears to only be available under NDA. The other part I've seen with an integrated PHY is the new Freescale MC9S12NE64. It has on-board 64KB of onboard Flash memory, but only 8KB of RAM, so I'm not sure if it will be suitable for any of my designs without adding external RAM.
Reply by ●January 3, 20052005-01-03
On 23 Dec 2004 12:31:22 -0800, in msg <qhwtv8ah9h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com> wrote:>"Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@NOSPAMatmel.com> writes: >> Maybe, Maybe not, Atmel just licensed a Gigabit Ethernet PHY >> and I am trying to find out if it is applicable to 10/100 as well, >> and then if it is cost effective. Would be nice, wouldn't it? > >It would be nice to see a part like the AT91RM9200, but with an integral >PHY. So far the only ARMs with an integral MAC and PHY that I've found >are from Micrel and Broadcom. Both require external Flash memory. I'm >having a hard time getting the eval board for the Micrel, though chips >are readily available through distribution and fairly inexpensive even >in small quantities. Broadcom appears to not want to sell chips except >in large OEM quantities, and technical documentation appears to only be >available under NDA.I was a software contractor for a while, working for DirecTV, who has used Broadcom chips in the past. They were, by far, the worst company I've ever worked with in getting information for their chipsets. When DirecTV has problems getting information you know something is screwed up with that company's marketing division. Broadcom's chips were usually superior in design, however DirecTV (it was actually Hughes for that job) would go with STMicro stuff when at all possible because of the problems with dealing with Broadcom. Ok, chipset costs also had something to do with it... -Zonn -- Zonn Moore Remove the ".AOL" from the Zektor, LLC email address to reply. www.zektor.com
