ARC Processor vs. well, anything else

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
My holy grail has always been a simple CPU combined with an smallish FPGA.  
 There are a few out there, very few, but none of them are available in app
ropriate packages and inexpensive.  

I've found a couple of Chinese startups that seem to have some interesting  
devices.  AGM has the AG6K, a 6k LUT with 250 MHz ARM in a QFP100, pretty m
uch the perfect part.  Trouble is I can't tell if this company is real.  Or
 maybe they are targeting customers buying millions with nothing to offer t
he smaller users.  

Another is by Gowin.  They actually make several.  They have options for ex
tra memory along with an ARM CPU and 2 or 4 kLUTs.  But they fall down on t
he packaging.  They offer a 48QFN and a couple of other larger packages, bu
t nothing suitable.  They use the 88QFN and 100QFP, but not for the ARM ver
sion.  They even have a version with a Bluetooth stack, but for some reason
 that uses an ARC processor (not that it's a problem) and still comes up ve
ry short in the packaging/IO count.  Gowin seems a bit more real, but still
 hard to find anyone selling their product line.  

The docs from both companies are not so easy to glean info from.  I guess t
hat goes with the territory of start ups.  

--  

  Rick C.

  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: ARC Processor vs. well, anything else
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 7:13:14 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
.  There are a few out there, very few, but none of them are available in a
ppropriate packages and inexpensive.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
g devices.  AGM has the AG6K, a 6k LUT with 250 MHz ARM in a QFP100, pretty
 much the perfect part.  Trouble is I can't tell if this company is real.  
Or maybe they are targeting customers buying millions with nothing to offer
 the smaller users.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
extra memory along with an ARM CPU and 2 or 4 kLUTs.  But they fall down on
 the packaging.  They offer a 48QFN and a couple of other larger packages,  
but nothing suitable.  They use the 88QFN and 100QFP, but not for the ARM v
ersion.  They even have a version with a Bluetooth stack, but for some reas
on that uses an ARC processor (not that it's a problem) and still comes up  
very short in the packaging/IO count.  Gowin seems a bit more real, but sti
ll hard to find anyone selling their product line.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 that goes with the territory of start ups.  

While making sure I had my facts right I kinda got off on a tangent.  My po
int is that the AGM devices include an ARM as well as some of the Gowin par
ts.  But the Gowin Bluetooth device uses an ARC EM4
at 24MHz.  I've not seem much of the ARC processors.  Are they yet another  
embedded processor that is pretty much as good as any?  Certainly 24 MHz is
n't very impressive, but I guess it's good enough for a Bluetooth stack.  

--  

  Rick C.

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: ARC Processor vs. well, anything else
On 11/16/2019 4:13 PM, Rick C wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You could use an FPGA and load a "soft" core of your choosing. It  
probably will not be as cost effective if you find a hard core  
alternative that fits your needs.

JJS

Re: ARC Processor vs. well, anything else
On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 9:21:04 AM UTC-5, John Speth wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
GA.  There are a few out there, very few, but none of them are available in
 appropriate packages and inexpensive.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, I've also written my own processors for FPGAs.  They can use a fair am
ount of resources and potentially run slowly.  Many of the FPGA devices I'v
e used could barely support a CPU with limited RAM.  The biggest issue I fi
ght now is package type.  I'm loath to try to lay out fine pitch BGAs when  
the only reason I would use them it because it is so hard to find FPGAs in  
anything else.  

The two ideal packages for much of my work are the QFN88 and VQFP100, the l
atter being what I'm using on a board in current production (actually in pr
oduction for 11 years now).  The QFN88 is quite a bit smaller, but in the e
nd may not be better because of the large thermal pad using all the room fo
r vias under the part.  

Keeping all the processing on chip reduces the need for I/O and keeps the s
peeds up.  

--  

  Rick C.

  -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline