Hi: TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU. This is basically an upgrade over the C28xx platform which had an integer-only 32-bit 150MHz DSP core and loads of peripherals oriented toward motion control. The gobs of counter/timers on the C28xx got me interested a few years ago, and I have made it my "2nd" platform for big jobs when my #1 (AVR) isn't enough. The addition of an FPU is very good news. I will be eager to get my hands on an eZdSP kit for the new FPU DSC when it comes out. There are only two additional things I could hope for: 1. more speed(225-300MHz or more would be killer); and 2. the more easy assembly language of the ADI SHARC platform. The ADI SHARC ADSP-21369 (I was reading about it at http://www.danvillesignal.com) is really a nice machine which goes to 400MHz. But it's still a DSP, not a DSC. Is there any likelyhood that ADI will move into the DSC market space, and put out something like a SHARC core with the loads of peripherals that a DSC should have? In a 18-pin DIP? (Just kidding :-) That would make me interested in switching to the SHARC. -- Good day! ________________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser&Electronics Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarleRemoveThis@BOGUSsandia.gov NOTE, delete texts: "RemoveThis" and "BOGUS" from email address to reply.
Will ADI ever make DSCs?
Started by ●June 11, 2007
Reply by ●June 11, 20072007-06-11
Chris Carlen wrote:> Hi: > > TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU. This is > basically an upgrade over the C28xx platform which had an integer-only > 32-bit 150MHz DSP core and loads of peripherals oriented toward motion > control. > > The gobs of counter/timers on the C28xx got me interested a few years > ago, and I have made it my "2nd" platform for big jobs when my #1 (AVR) > isn't enough. > > The addition of an FPU is very good news. I will be eager to get my > hands on an eZdSP kit for the new FPU DSC when it comes out. > > There are only two additional things I could hope for: 1. more > speed(225-300MHz or more would be killer); and 2. the more easy assembly > language of the ADI SHARC platform. > > The ADI SHARC ADSP-21369 (I was reading about it at > http://www.danvillesignal.com) is really a nice machine which goes to > 400MHz. But it's still a DSP, not a DSC. > > Is there any likelyhood that ADI will move into the DSC market space, > and put out something like a SHARC core with the loads of peripherals > that a DSC should have? In a 18-pin DIP? (Just kidding :-) > > That would make me interested in switching to the SHARC.ADI used to have FLASH DSPs on their roadmap some years ago now. But they decided the FLASH speed bottleneck was too severe, and switched to the RAM based ones. So, they have a clear speed edge over FLASH, but as you mention, do not cover embedded control too well. The other family they have is the ARM7 Analog Microcontrollers, but they are well down on DSP horsepower. They also have Metering Chips, with ROM.DSP + FLASH.8051. So, I guess that leaves the trailing edge space on the DSPs, and in that area they are a bit like intel - focused mainly on the large revenue areas, and will get to the smaller markets, as time allows.... They may figure most designers would choose to deploy 2 chips, and get the best of both worlds ?. -jg
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
Un bel giorno Chris Carlen digit�:> TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU.Too bad they implemented only the single precision IEEE-754 format, and not the double precision. -- emboliaschizoide.splinder.com
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
Un bel giorno Chris Carlen digit�:> TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU.Too bad they implemented only the single precision IEEE-754 format, and not the double precision. -- emboliaschizoide.splinder.com
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
Un bel giorno Chris Carlen digit�:> TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU.Too bad they implemented only the single precision IEEE-754 format, and not the double precision. -- emboliaschizoide.splinder.com
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
Chris Carlen <crcarleRemoveThis@BOGUSsandia.gov> wrote in news:f4komp01qab@news2.newsguy.com:> Hi: > > TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU. This is > basically an upgrade over the C28xx platform which had an integer-only > 32-bit 150MHz DSP core and loads of peripherals oriented toward motion > control. > > The gobs of counter/timers on the C28xx got me interested a few years > ago, and I have made it my "2nd" platform for big jobs when my #1 (AVR) > isn't enough. > > The addition of an FPU is very good news. I will be eager to get my > hands on an eZdSP kit for the new FPU DSC when it comes out. > > There are only two additional things I could hope for: 1. more > speed(225-300MHz or more would be killer); and 2. the more easy assembly > language of the ADI SHARC platform. > > The ADI SHARC ADSP-21369 (I was reading about it at > http://www.danvillesignal.com) is really a nice machine which goes to > 400MHz. But it's still a DSP, not a DSC. > > Is there any likelyhood that ADI will move into the DSC market space, > and put out something like a SHARC core with the loads of peripherals > that a DSC should have? In a 18-pin DIP? (Just kidding :-) > > That would make me interested in switching to the SHARC. > > >To help enlighten our audience, in your view what exactly constitutes a Digital Signal Controller (DSC)? -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
dalai lamah wrote:> Un bel giorno Chris Carlen digit�: > >>TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU. > > Too bad they implemented only the single precision IEEE-754 format, and not > the double precision.Do any floating point DSPs implement double floating point precision? Does the presence of the IEEE-754 FPU make implementation of double precision library calls much more efficient? Ie., just a pair of single precision FPU instructions combined with a bit of glue instructions, rather than a lengthy ordeal with integer instructions to emulate floating point operations? I wondered about doubles on DSPs in the past, then got the impression that for DSP, single precision was all that was usually needed. AFter all, it's not for building PCs, it's for signals. I would like to learn more about this though. No expert here, just watching, tinkering, and learning. -- Good day! ________________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser&Electronics Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarleRemoveThis@BOGUSsandia.gov NOTE, delete texts: "RemoveThis" and "BOGUS" from email address to reply.
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
Jim Granville wrote:> Chris Carlen wrote: > >> Hi: >> >> TI recently announced the TMS320F283xx 32-bit DSC with an FPU. This >> is basically an upgrade over the C28xx platform which had an >> integer-only 32-bit 150MHz DSP core and loads of peripherals oriented >> toward motion control. >> >> The gobs of counter/timers on the C28xx got me interested a few years >> ago, and I have made it my "2nd" platform for big jobs when my #1 >> (AVR) isn't enough. >> >> The addition of an FPU is very good news. I will be eager to get my >> hands on an eZdSP kit for the new FPU DSC when it comes out. >> >> There are only two additional things I could hope for: 1. more >> speed(225-300MHz or more would be killer); and 2. the more easy >> assembly language of the ADI SHARC platform. >> >> The ADI SHARC ADSP-21369 (I was reading about it at >> http://www.danvillesignal.com) is really a nice machine which goes to >> 400MHz. But it's still a DSP, not a DSC. >> >> Is there any likelyhood that ADI will move into the DSC market space, >> and put out something like a SHARC core with the loads of peripherals >> that a DSC should have? In a 18-pin DIP? (Just kidding :-) >> >> That would make me interested in switching to the SHARC. > > ADI used to have FLASH DSPs on their roadmap some years ago now. > But they decided the FLASH speed bottleneck was too severe, and switched > to the RAM based ones. So, they have a clear speed edge over FLASH, but > as you mention, do not cover embedded control too well.Wouldn't it be possible to put in the flash+peripherals, and allow one to run the fast stuff from internal RAM? -- Good day! ________________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser&Electronics Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarleRemoveThis@BOGUSsandia.gov NOTE, delete texts: "RemoveThis" and "BOGUS" from email address to reply.
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
Chris Carlen wrote: (snip)> Does the presence of the IEEE-754 FPU make implementation of double > precision library calls much more efficient? Ie., just a pair of single > precision FPU instructions combined with a bit of glue instructions, > rather than a lengthy ordeal with integer instructions to emulate > floating point operations?When IBM designed extended (quadruple) precision for S/360 it was done such that it would be relatively easy to compute using ordinary double precision instructions. They then supplied the simulator to do that, for machines without extended precision. Because of the work required, extended precision divide was simulated on all machines (until relatively recently).> I wondered about doubles on DSPs in the past, then got the impression > that for DSP, single precision was all that was usually needed. AFter > all, it's not for building PCs, it's for signals. I would like to learn > more about this though. No expert here, just watching, tinkering, and > learning.For audio and video signals, 24 bits is more than enough. 16 bits for audio is something around 100dB signal/quantization noise, better than the background noise for most rooms. Video needs even less. To me, a better question is why you want floating point at all? In most cases, fixed point should be a better choice. If you can do fixed point 32 bit combining 16 bit operations, or even 48 bit fixed point, isn't that more than enough? -- glen
Reply by ●June 12, 20072007-06-12
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:> > For audio and video signals, 24 bits is more than enough. 16 bits for > audio is something around 100dB signal/quantization noise, better > than the background noise for most rooms. Video needs even less.For the fair quality audio processing, the computations shoud be done with the 31-bit precision at the very least. The 24 bits are definitely not enough for audio even if the noise shaping is employed.> To me, a better question is why you want floating point at all?Floating point is the great simplification of the development. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
