TI MSP430
in [Embedded]
|
From: larwe on 8 Apr 2006 18:45 Grant Edwards wrote: > >> > The MSP430 prices are annoying, though. AVRs come down to > >> > as little as 1/4th the price of an equivalent TI part. > >> > >> In what volumes ? > > > > 30~50K annually. > > You must get a better deal on AVR parts than I could. I was I can buy an ATmega32L cheaper than an MSP430F1122...
From: Mark Borgerson on 8 Apr 2006 18:53 In article <1144533945.544698.172170(a)t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, zwsdotcom(a)gmail.com says... > > Jim Granville wrote: > > > On the MAXQ, watch out for the high Core-On Icc, eg one spec's > > Interesting. I never looked closely at this part because frankly we've > got enough devices in our stable and don't want to start learning a new > one... :) > > > > The MSP430 prices are annoying, though. AVRs come down to > > > as little as 1/4th the price of an equivalent TI part. > > > > In what volumes ? > > 30~50K annually. > > That quantity factor makes a big difference. My customer had no problem with a waaaaay over-specified MSP430F149 as a combo RTC and I/O controller at quantities of a hundred per year. For that particular scientific instrument, the value added is in the software and sensor circuitry. A few dollars here and there to make the engineers comfortable is no problem when you're selling a few hundred instruments at $3000+ per unit. Engineering for products above 10,000 units per year really does require a different approach to component selection. I think I'll stay in the low-volume, high value-added arena where I don't have to count the bytes and pennies quite so carefully! ;-) Mark Borgerson
From: larwe on 8 Apr 2006 19:03 Mark Borgerson wrote: > That quantity factor makes a big difference. My customer had no > problem with a waaaaay over-specified MSP430F149 as a combo RTC > and I/O controller at quantities of a hundred per year. For that You didn't provide the punchline - did he look at AVR and compare prices at all? MSP430 is a truly elegant architecture, there's no denying it. von Neumann simplicity, totally transparent handling of registers and addressing modes; I really can't find much to fault with it (except maybe the way info memory is handled). But: > software and sensor circuitry. A few dollars here and there > to make the engineers comfortable is no problem when you're How much "comfort" did the F149 earn you, out of interest? I've worked a lot with AVR in my real life, and MSP430 mostly at work. While AVR is not internally as tidy as MSP430, it's really not bad (especially compared with a horror story like the PICmicro). And both parts are quite C-friendly, if this tickles your pickle. > a different approach to component selection. I think I'll stay > in the low-volume, high value-added arena where I don't have to > count the bytes and pennies quite so carefully! ;-) The dollars add up pretty quickly. I can't even make a decision that's worth less than $250K these days. (These numbers are frightening, by the way).
From: Marc Ramsey on 8 Apr 2006 20:16 larwe wrote: > MSP430 is a truly elegant architecture, there's no denying it. von > Neumann simplicity, totally transparent handling of registers and > addressing modes; I really can't find much to fault with it (except > maybe the way info memory is handled). But: Of course, the architecture is a simplified version of the TMS9900 CPU, which was derived from the TI 990 minicomputer, which was in turn a rip-off of the PDP-11 ISA, with slight changes (fewer addressing modes, allowing twice as many registers) to avoid patent issues... Marc
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Apr 2006 20:38
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 00:16:04 GMT, Marc Ramsey <marc(a)ranlog.comREMOVE> wrote: >larwe wrote: >> MSP430 is a truly elegant architecture, there's no denying it. von >> Neumann simplicity, totally transparent handling of registers and >> addressing modes; I really can't find much to fault with it (except >> maybe the way info memory is handled). But: > >Of course, the architecture is a simplified version of the TMS9900 CPU, >which was derived from the TI 990 minicomputer, which was in turn a >rip-off of the PDP-11 ISA, with slight changes (fewer addressing modes, >allowing twice as many registers) to avoid patent issues... I have a few comments about a pdp-11 comparison at: http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/msp430.html Jon |