1 |
wireless wrote: |
2 |
> > It's not a realistic spec for any microcontroller. Please try again, |
3 |
> > with more care. You can get most of what you want in a single package |
4 |
> > but not all of it. Unless of course you make your own.. Take an Actel |
5 |
> > M1A3P250 with an ARM Cortex-M1 hardcore, then you could easily fit |
6 |
> > all those peripherals in one package. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Oh sure it is, but not in the 32 bit world. |
9 |
|
10 |
You can get one, but will end up with a much larger chip, in order to |
11 |
find one which has all the things you needed, and it'll also have a |
12 |
ton of other stuff that you don't need. |
13 |
|
14 |
To a degree I think this goes for all processor makers, but granted, |
15 |
Microchip really have very many parts with only small peripheral |
16 |
differences. :) |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
> > M1A3P250 starts at $11.99 at Future Electronics. (MOQ=180, was 90 before) |
20 |
> > But maybe you'll be able to put something else on the board into the |
21 |
> > FPGA to balance that extra cost. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> yes, 32 bit and dsp processors have come way down on price. |
24 |
|
25 |
The M1A3P250 is not a processor, it's a processor and FPGA combined. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
> But, when you look at building a complete embedded system, |
29 |
> those high end processors eat you alive on external |
30 |
> component count and manufacturing costs. |
31 |
|
32 |
The point that this thread tries to make is that all 32-bit |
33 |
processors are not "high end" as you might be used to. |
34 |
|
35 |
In particular the Cortex-M products are quite fuss free. A handful of |
36 |
caps is really all you need. That goes for the M1-enabled FPGA too. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
> That board I just spec'd cost less that $30 to manufacture, with a |
40 |
> PIC and every thing else that I did not require, like molex |
41 |
> connectors and such. |
42 |
|
43 |
I think the cost would not be significantly higher if using something |
44 |
more powerful than a PIC, and the other point this thread tries to |
45 |
make is that the development work would be significantly easier, |
46 |
netting a total reduced cost. |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> > As you see, part cost is no problem for ARM, but you'll need more |
50 |
> > than one component for your project however you do it. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> PRECISELY!; a 32 bit part can never compete with a micro if |
53 |
> specs are tight and cost/power requirements are astringent, |
54 |
> which most are. Certainly anything that is manufacutured in |
55 |
> lots of 10 or more, every penny counts and cost reduction |
56 |
> rules the decision process, never what some employee or |
57 |
> consult "likes". They (32+) only compete when you actually |
58 |
> need all those mips and mops, which is rare for the vast |
59 |
> majority of uP based products. |
60 |
|
61 |
I think you would benefit from re-evaluating this position, quickly. |
62 |
|
63 |
And of course it is simply folly to save on production cost in a |
64 |
small (1k, 10k) run if there is a noticeable tradeoff to be made with |
65 |
software/firmware development effort. |
66 |
|
67 |
For lots of 10, 100, 1000 and even 10000, pennies in production are |
68 |
irrelevant, they translate to just a few hours worth of development |
69 |
time. |
70 |
|
71 |
I haven't looked closely at the power numbers for M0, so for power, |
72 |
physical size and mass production I agree that it remains very |
73 |
important to choose parts very carefully. |
74 |
|
75 |
But ARM cores have quite significant benefits in development, and |
76 |
especially with Cortex-M0 they are eating up big parts of what used |
77 |
to be an 8- or 16-bit only market. |
78 |
|
79 |
|
80 |
> Don't believe me, just do a little research into the numbers, |
81 |
|
82 |
This is my point too. |
83 |
|
84 |
|
85 |
> Fairchild and such won't even talk to you about |
86 |
> anything less than 1M in qty per quarter. |
87 |
|
88 |
That's certainly not my experience from (in particular) Fairchild. |
89 |
|
90 |
|
91 |
> For large companies, those (8/16)uP are sub $1, for qty 10k or |
92 |
> more....... Some companies sell uP for pennies, just |
93 |
> to get the supply contract for the passives and such |
94 |
> on really large deals. |
95 |
|
96 |
Of course it may be significant to save $1 (vs. the $1.46 ARM in |
97 |
100qty, assuming you can get down to $0.46 for something else) for a |
98 |
10k run, but certainly not for a 100qty run. It buys just one hour of |
99 |
development time. |
100 |
|
101 |
|
102 |
> 8/16 STILL rules the world and dominates the economics of embedded. |
103 |
|
104 |
The state today is mostly uninteresting IMO, I find what happens |
105 |
tomorrow all the more interesting. ARM is quickly taking a big part |
106 |
of the market. |
107 |
|
108 |
|
109 |
> Granted 32 bit cores that run linux are very cool and preferred by |
110 |
> most embedded folks, but, that's a very small number of design wins |
111 |
> with big quantity (cell phones for example), compared to their |
112 |
> mature brethren (8/16). |
113 |
|
114 |
That's comparing apples and oranges. I think you should really take |
115 |
a look at the smallest ARM cores. |
116 |
|
117 |
|
118 |
> and yes, I like ARM very much, particularly in areas of |
119 |
> low power design, relative to intel or amd. |
120 |
|
121 |
While more on-topic for gentoo-embedded that is only the Cortex-A |
122 |
parts, which is on the opposite end of ARM's line card. Look into |
123 |
the Cortex-Ms. |
124 |
|
125 |
|
126 |
//Peter |