>>> :( And as far >>> as I remember, the simulator wasn't included in the CrossCore >>> development kit supplied with the eval kit. >> >> But you can simulate (should be called debug instead?) from within >> an EzLite session. 90 Day Test Drives are available, too. > > I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I bought my eval > board (EZ-Lite 21161), it came with a full license which is > restricted to the EZ-Lite board, but not in time. >The EZ Kits come with a limited license. It restricts the size of the program to 1/4 memory. You need to have the EZ-Kit plugged in as well. It does not expire. The 90 day trial is a full system with a time bomb. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
TI vs ADI
Started by ●July 15, 2004
Reply by ●July 20, 20042004-07-20
Reply by ●July 20, 20042004-07-20
Bernhard Holzmayer <holzmayer.bernhard@deadspam.com> wrote in message news:<2423299.UuicPcLE2x@holzmayer.ifr.rt>...> I think there's a tendency that this changes, at the moment. > ADI seems to become more popular, since there's a Blackfin. > That's certainly the one which I would recommend.We looked at the Blackfin recently, as a successor to a 2189 based design. Anyone know why they changed from big-endian to little-endian?
Reply by ●July 22, 20042004-07-22
Al Clark <dsp@danvillesignal.com> wrote in message news:<Xns952C562404E67aclarkdanvillesignal@66.133.130.30>...> >>> :( And as far > >>> as I remember, the simulator wasn't included in the CrossCore > >>> development kit supplied with the eval kit. > >> > >> But you can simulate (should be called debug instead?) from within > >> an EzLite session. 90 Day Test Drives are available, too. > > > > I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I bought my eval > > board (EZ-Lite 21161), it came with a full license which is > > restricted to the EZ-Lite board, but not in time. > > > > The EZ Kits come with a limited license. It restricts the size of the > program to 1/4 memory. You need to have the EZ-Kit plugged in as well. > It does not expire.You guys are right, maybe I didn't express myself the right way. Aditya Sane wrote: "the simulator wasn't included in the CrossCore development kit supplied with the eval kit." I tried to say that indeed you could simulate, better said, debug, with the software toolset provided with the kits. However, you should have the kit attached to the PC, and the program is actually running on your kit, not just in the PC (as would be the case for a simulation session). Thank you for correcting me. Personally I think that both ADI and TI have similar chips and tools, maybe one is stronger in one regard than the other, but overall they are quite similar. For me it was more of a coincidence of destiny to start to work with ADI, and I've found it to be a lucky conincidence. I've never found a real need to switch to TI for any design. Sometimes I think it would be good to learn some about TI's tools and chips, but then I think it's maybe not very worthy the investment if at the end I could do the same with ADI, and I already made the investment. Sometimes it's better to become more proficent with one provider than trying to learn everything about everybody. Anyway, I think it wouldn't be much of a problem if I had to change to another vendor; its like at the University: they thought me how to develop projects for microcontrollers, specifically with Micrchip's PIC, but out in the industry you find out that you need to program in Motorola's HC08, Intel's 8051 (and derivatives), etc... So, the important thing to learn was how to do that, not specifically the tools or the chip used. Just my 2 cents. JaaC> > The 90 day trial is a full system with a time bomb. > > > -- > Al Clark > Danville Signal Processing, Inc. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 > > details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp > email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com > > Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
Reply by ●July 26, 20042004-07-26
Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona wrote:> Sometimes it's better to become more proficent with one provider > than trying to learn everything about everybody. Anyway, I think > it wouldn't be much of a problem if I had to change to another > vendor; its like at the University: they thought me how to develop > projects for microcontrollers, specifically with Micrchip's PIC, > but out in the industry you find out that you need to program in > Motorola's HC08, Intel's 8051 (and derivatives), etc... So, the > important thing to learn was how to do that, not specifically the > tools or the chip used. >1) Finding out the pros and cons of a chip/provider requires to invest time (more than cost). There are quite a lot of pitfalls, which usually are discovered when really starting to work in a real project with real schedules - not before. If you switch to another chip/provider pair, you'll find out that your experience is reset and you'll have to learn them again. It's hard and discouraging, when it happens the first time, maybe astonishing, when you find out that it's all the same with the next chip/provider. At a certain point, you'll get used to this procedure - and it becomes part of your job, just routine. But it costs time (=money), so you'll avoid it if possible and prefer doing the new job with the latest favorite chip/provider - if possible. 2) Because practical reasons are usually not so important (see above), political and strategical issues sometimes are. There were times when TI was not too reliable: chips were abandonned although they had promised differently, then they changed their opinion again, and the chip was in full production again - except that it wasn't available for half a year - such things. Probably that has changed meanwhile (at least I hope so), and in fact we use an old TI DSP for around ten years now without having problems. I learnt from this, that it is sometimes more important to select the right manufacturer than the right chip. And, that I should keep an eye on his roadmap. Bernhard
Reply by ●July 26, 20042004-07-26
Bernhard Holzmayer <holzmayer.bernhard@deadspam.com> wrote> I learnt from this, that it is sometimes more important to select > the right manufacturer than the right chip. And, that I should keep > an eye on his roadmap.Fortunately for the adepts to DSPs from both TI and ADI, nowadays they are strong enough, and have roadmaps for their DSPs. That way you can take almost for granted that the one of the most important values of having worked with the chips from the vendor you like, which is the EXPERIENCE, won't be lost and your knowledge will scale accordingly to the improvements they have within their roadmaps. Regards, JaaC> > Bernhard
Reply by ●July 26, 20042004-07-26
"Rob Hutchinson" <rhutch7@kdsi.net> wrote in message news:<40f6b21e_5@corp.newsgroups.com>...> I have experience coding Motorola 56K DSPs mostly for audio applications. I > want to make myself more marketable by learning a new chip. I'm thinking to > buy an eval board and start learning either a TI or an ADI platform. (I've > also written a fair amount of C/C++ for DSP apps but NOT on a DSProcessor). > Questions: > 1.)In the current market which company has a bigger market share? Which > would be a better bet for finding work these days? > 2.)Any suggestions for a good 'starter' chip/eval board from each company? > Thank you in advance, > Rob >According to Semico Research Corp. in 2003 TI held 47.3% of the total DSP market vs. ADI's 7.3%. Even Motorola has bigger market share than ADI. See http://i.cmpnet.com/silicon/2004/2003_semi_market_shares.pdf Of course, it doesn't mean that you will see the similar relationship w.r.t. number of products developed with DSPs from respective companies. For example, traditionally, ADI is strong in floating-point segment which accounts for relatively large percentage of projects but very small number of units sold.
Reply by ●July 27, 20042004-07-27
already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote in news:f881b862.0407261324.14a6d633@posting.google.com:> "Rob Hutchinson" <rhutch7@kdsi.net> wrote in message > news:<40f6b21e_5@corp.newsgroups.com>... >> I have experience coding Motorola 56K DSPs mostly for audio >> applications. I want to make myself more marketable by learning a >> new chip. I'm thinking to buy an eval board and start learning >> either a TI or an ADI platform. (I've also written a fair amount of >> C/C++ for DSP apps but NOT on a DSProcessor). Questions: >> 1.)In the current market which company has a bigger market share? >> Which would be a better bet for finding work these days? >> 2.)Any suggestions for a good 'starter' chip/eval board from each >> company? >> Thank you in advance, >> Rob >> > > According to Semico Research Corp. in 2003 TI held 47.3% of the total > DSP market vs. ADI's 7.3%. Even Motorola has bigger market share than > ADI. > See http://i.cmpnet.com/silicon/2004/2003_semi_market_shares.pdf > > Of course, it doesn't mean that you will see the similar relationship > w.r.t. number of products developed with DSPs from respective > companies. > > For example, traditionally, ADI is strong in floating-point segment > which accounts for relatively large percentage of projects but very > small number of units sold. >I have seen similar numbers from Will Strauss of Forward Concepts. These numbers are very distorted for most DSP practioners. In fact I corresponded with Will about these same questions. Consider the following: 1. Two out of three DSPs are in used in cell phones. This may be very important to cell phone manufacturers and certain DSP manufacturers, but chances are it doesn't mean squat to most of us. 2. Disk drives are also an important market. When was the last time you considered a Lucent (once AT&T) DSP? If you are one of their 12 customers, you are probably very well supported, otherwise..... 3. When you factor out the few really big special vertical markets, you are left with the "Rest of the World" market" This is the area that most of us work in. It's the area with the most new designs (albeit with much lower volume per design). In this space ADI and TI are the main two horses in the race, each with approximately equal market share (30%). The remaining 40% of the market is very fragmented. Consider that comp.dsp posts represent a reasonable sample of the general purpose DSP market. You might conclude that based on questions and comments posted on this newsgroup that ADI and TI have similar market share since both companies are discussed at about the same rate. You might also notice that you don't see a lot of discussion about any other specific DSP manufacturer on a regular basis. The bottom line is that if you are working in the general purpose DSP market, you can find compelling reasons to use DSPs from ADI or TI (and others). I just don't think the overall market share numbers are particularly important to your selection criteria. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
Reply by ●July 27, 20042004-07-27
Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona wrote:> Fortunately for the adepts to DSPs from both TI and ADI, nowadays > they are strong enough, and have roadmaps for their DSPs. That way > you can take almost for granted that the one of the most important > values of having worked with the chips from the vendor you like, > which is the EXPERIENCE, won't be lost and your knowledge will > scale accordingly to the improvements they have within their > roadmaps. > > Regards, > > JaaC >I agree. Bernhard
Reply by ●July 27, 20042004-07-27
Al Clark wrote: ...> I have seen similar numbers from Will Strauss of Forward Concepts. These > numbers are very distorted for most DSP practioners. In fact I > corresponded with Will about these same questions. > > Consider the following:...> The bottom line is that if you are working in the general purpose DSP > market, you can find compelling reasons to use DSPs from ADI or TI (and > others). I just don't think the overall market share numbers are > particularly important to your selection criteria.Al, I think I know what you're getting at, but I wouldn't put it that way. The market-share numbers aren't distorted as far as I know, but it's easy to assign the wrong significance to them. You explain why that's so. The disparity shows us that here, as with many things in life, a glance at the bottom line that ignores nuances often leads us far astray. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 27, 20042004-07-27
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in news:410671de$0$5625$61fed72c@news.rcn.com:> Al Clark wrote: > > ... > >> I have seen similar numbers from Will Strauss of Forward Concepts. >> These numbers are very distorted for most DSP practioners. In fact I >> corresponded with Will about these same questions. >> >> Consider the following: > > ... > >> The bottom line is that if you are working in the general purpose DSP >> market, you can find compelling reasons to use DSPs from ADI or TI >> (and others). I just don't think the overall market share numbers are >> particularly important to your selection criteria. > > Al, > > I think I know what you're getting at, but I wouldn't put it that way. > The market-share numbers aren't distorted as far as I know, but it's > easy to assign the wrong significance to them. You explain why that's > so. The disparity shows us that here, as with many things in life, a > glance at the bottom line that ignores nuances often leads us far > astray. > > JerryOK, I concede that "distorted" might have been a bad choice of words. The DSP marketshare numbers that are released to the general public almost always reflect the tremendous influence of the cell phone market and the other special vertical markets. I think this situation sometimes causes people to discount other players in the market (such as ADI) because they perceive that TI is the only company of significance. You rarely find reference to the general purpose "rest of the world" market segment. I maintain that this is the area that most DSP practioners participate in.> The disparity shows us that here, as with many things in life, a > glance at the bottom line that ignores nuances often leads us far > astray. > > JerryThis sums up my thoughts very nicely -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- comp.dsp conference July 28 - Aug 1, 2004 details at http://www.danvillesignal.com/index.php?id=compdsp email: compdsp@danvillesignal.com Who says you can't teach an old dog a new DSP trick?
