Which uC for VoIP

Hi,

I'm going to port a VoIP application (with security and a bit of DSP
stuff) to a rather small embedded platform. So far, two good candidates
are IXP425 and MPC8541E (both running at 500Mhz), though the older
MPC8272E is still appealing. I can only spend time on one but I have no
experience with neither of them. Actually I cannot figure out how to
compare these new light-weight "network processors" from Intel to the
classic CPM-based chips offered by Motorola.
Could someone give me a hint? I studied the specs, but still I have no
clue. I'd need to hear from who already had the chance to test their real
performance.

Thanks

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:12:54 +0100, Legrandin
<legrandin@despammed.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm going to port a VoIP application (with security and a bit of DSP
>stuff) to a rather small embedded platform. So far, two good candidates
>are IXP425 and MPC8541E (both running at 500Mhz), though the older
>MPC8272E is still appealing. I can only spend time on one but I have no
>experience with neither of them. Actually I cannot figure out how to
>compare these new light-weight "network processors" from Intel to the
>classic CPM-based chips offered by Motorola.
>Could someone give me a hint? I studied the specs, but still I have no
>clue. I'd need to hear from who already had the chance to test their real
>performance.
>
>Thanks
>


We bolted a TI TLV320AI22CPT VoIP codec onto an MPC8250 running at
250MHz.  Our customer (who has ported Linux to our SBC) hasn't
complained, so it must be working OK.  We also have QNX running on
this platform.  

The integrated security hardware in the MPC8272 looks interesting, but
I have to wonder how much effort would be required to build
Linux/QNX/whatever drivers to support it.


================================

Greg Neff
VP Engineering
*Microsym* Computers Inc.
greg@guesswhichwordgoeshere.com

"Greg Neff" <greg@nospam.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:2lmup0psdkcokl3cg447cbv92eeqv1l21r@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:12:54 +0100, Legrandin
> <legrandin@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm going to port a VoIP application (with security and a bit of DSP
> >stuff) to a rather small embedded platform. So far, two good candidates
> >are IXP425 and MPC8541E (both running at 500Mhz), though the older
> >MPC8272E is still appealing. I can only spend time on one but I have no
> >experience with neither of them. Actually I cannot figure out how to
> >compare these new light-weight "network processors" from Intel to the
> >classic CPM-based chips offered by Motorola.
> >Could someone give me a hint? I studied the specs, but still I have no
> >clue. I'd need to hear from who already had the chance to test their real
> >performance.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
Why use a "general purpose" chip, when there are lower cost dedicated VoIP
chips around?
 They should be more optimized and thus more cost effective.


-- 
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.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:40:42 +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

>> >I'm going to port a VoIP application (with security and a bit of DSP
>> >stuff) to a rather small embedded platform. So far, two good candidates
>> >are IXP425 and MPC8541E (both running at 500Mhz), though the older
>> >MPC8272E is still appealing. I can only spend time on one but I have no

> Why use a "general purpose" chip, when there are lower cost dedicated VoIP
> chips around?
>  They should be more optimized and thus more cost effective.

You are right, they are, but in my case price is not a major concern (because
of the little volume) and I am more interested in VoIP solutions belonging
to a family of long-lived, widespread and well-supported uC.