Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) only cost about half of 21375($15). If you must know, this is for a prosumer audio product.> by form factor I mean similar device functionality, 5510 is fixed > point, to begin with, there isn't anything out there to compete with a > 3mbit SHARC
SHARC, cache and sdram
Started by ●June 13, 2008
Reply by ●June 16, 20082008-06-16
Reply by ●June 16, 20082008-06-16
On Jun 16, 3:41�am, SYL <sya...@gmail.com> wrote:> Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the > reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) > only cost about half of 21375($15).I don't know your specific requirement are so I can't say, but it the C6720 meets your needs I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC due to the price difference
Reply by ●June 16, 20082008-06-16
steve wrote:> On Jun 16, 3:41 am, SYL <sya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the >>reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) >>only cost about half of 21375($15). > > > > I don't know your specific requirement are so I can't say, but it the > C6720 meets your needs I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC due to the > price differenceYou seem to be advocating SHARC without providing any specific arguments. Is it a matter of religion? Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●June 16, 20082008-06-16
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:> > > steve wrote: >> On Jun 16, 3:41 am, SYL <sya...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the >>> reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) >>> only cost about half of 21375($15). >> >> >> >> I don't know your specific requirement are so I can't say, but it the >> C6720 meets your needs I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC due to the >> price difference > > You seem to be advocating SHARC without providing any specific > arguments. Is it a matter of religion?How does "I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC" amount to advocacy? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●June 16, 20082008-06-16
On Jun 16, 9:14�am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> steve wrote: > > On Jun 16, 3:41 am, SYL <sya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the > >>reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) > >>only cost about half of 21375($15). > > > I don't know your specific requirement are so I can't say, but it the > > C6720 meets your needs I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC due to the > > price difference > > You seem to be advocating SHARC without providing any specific > arguments. Is it a matter of religion? > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com?I only mentioned that if you needed 3mbit floating point DSP, there wasn't a similar alternative to the SHARC, that's pretty specific. I think your reading between the lines too much and not the actual lines themselves
Reply by ●June 17, 20082008-06-17
steve <bungalow_steve@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ae9e8191-9677-47a6-9d66- 9b2e52b530d2@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:> On Jun 16, 3:41�am, SYL <sya...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the >> reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) >> only cost about half of 21375($15). > > > I don't know your specific requirement are so I can't say, but it the > C6720 meets your needs I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC due to the > price differenceFirst of all, the ADSP-21375 does not cost $15, unless you are dealing with very small quantities. If this is the case, the cost of development will completely overshadow any price differences in chips. We use the ADSP-21371 (a bigger brother of the 21375) on some new boards. It is supported by DSP Concepts' Audio Weaver which might be very useful in your case. In any case, I would maintain that SHARC's are much easier to program than the TI DSPs. In audio space, SHARCs are much more popular. You haven't really described your application. My observation is that the internal peripherals and supporting cast of surrounding hardware also play significantly into these decisions. Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
Reply by ●June 17, 20082008-06-17
Can you describe why SHARC is easier to program? SIMD? C like assembly? I don't see a huge difference there. I guess it is true that SHARC dominated, but looks like C6720 is changing the scene. basically both C6720 and Sharc offer the peripherals we need. Thanks On Jun 17, 6:48 am, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> wrote:> steve <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ae9e8191-9677-47a6-9d66- > 9b2e52b53...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > On Jun 16, 3:41 am, SYL <sya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Let's compare C6720 (64KB ram) and ADSP-21375 (0.5M-bit). What are the > >> reasons for choosing SHARC? I can't seem to see any, esp. C6720($8) > >> only cost about half of 21375($15). > > > I don't know your specific requirement are so I can't say, but it the > > C6720 meets your needs I wouldn't even evaluate the SHARC due to the > > price difference > > First of all, the ADSP-21375 does not cost $15, unless you are dealing with > very small quantities. > > If this is the case, the cost of development will completely overshadow any > price differences in chips. > > We use the ADSP-21371 (a bigger brother of the 21375) on some new boards. It > is supported by DSP Concepts' Audio Weaver which might be very useful in your > case. > > In any case, I would maintain that SHARC's are much easier to program than > the TI DSPs. In audio space, SHARCs are much more popular. > > You haven't really described your application. My observation is that the > internal peripherals and supporting cast of surrounding hardware also play > significantly into these decisions. > > Al Clark > Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
