Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #462741
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die |
| Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:54:12 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 101 |
| Message-ID | <ogsfih$eb2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <oqjuicht9fdpjc4l72onui4cbjjkv4onua@4ax.com> <6719f89f-2672-439b-878e-6128b0ff0bae@googlegroups.com> <9qh0jcd0d2mmrse6ppqbv1bpdrbm0jtehk@4ax.com> <f54fffae-a5f5-4d54-84a2-ad2c7d6b1cea@googlegroups.com> <ogpnqd$f1$1@dont-email.me> <oq41jc5r05aa3qmldmb2gl8j85o03jnstb@4ax.com> <a2ff45b5-aa06-416a-a0df-45cc6703f553@googlegroups.com> <gs51jc5ss5e4514a580nsolrffub5v81g2@4ax.com> <58b95d79-d774-4d0c-ba35-c0005b3d92cf@googlegroups.com> <d371jclk08q6bfebaihvcbp94e4a8kdfg3@4ax.com> <38d9fef5-ee82-4618-8990-a7753a975f8e@googlegroups.com> <ogq9r0$tnp$1@dont-email.me> <7530b16d-d50a-437a-a4a8-3b6d988805f8@googlegroups.com> <ogrvii$jif$1@dont-email.me> <7f8931fb-e9d5-4a1b-b548-e78530e2ac6a@googlegroups.com> <ogs7kf$6qi$1@dont-email.me> <e961b4b6-5225-4ea3-9685-5688db09cdaf@googlegroups.com> <ogsdnf$85q$1@dont-email.me> <581c107f-c5ac-451a-8f94-ee91470b05ff@googlegroups.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8bit |
| Injection-Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:50:41 -0000 (UTC) |
| Injection-Info | mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="83c47242f76685418c881ae7a253d2d8"; logging-data="14690"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vOJGws9jKFVYjxjMlrVKb" |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 |
| In-Reply-To | <581c107f-c5ac-451a-8f94-ee91470b05ff@googlegroups.com> |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:zBxJrUublDaXyxz5IMUBicKPRYM= |
| Xref | csiph.com sci.electronics.design:462741 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Klaus Kragelund wrote on 6/2/2017 3:36 PM: > On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 9:22:46 PM UTC+2, rickman wrote: >> Klaus Kragelund wrote on 6/2/2017 1:47 PM: >>> On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 7:38:46 PM UTC+2, rickman wrote: >>>> klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote on 6/2/2017 1:01 PM: >>>>> On Friday, 2 June 2017 17:21:13 UTC+2, rickman wrote: >>>>>> klaus.kragelund@gmail.com wrote on 6/2/2017 4:13 AM: >>>>>>> On Friday, 2 June 2017 02:04:06 UTC+2, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>> Klaus Kragelund wrote on 6/1/2017 7:47 PM: >>>>>>>>> Datasheet: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.gsense.com.cn/Uploadfiles/20144241734995881.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WTF? You had to find the data sheet on a third party web site??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, I dug a bit at gsense.com and it seems they are the parent company. How >>>>>>>> did you find the data sheet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Google is your friend >>>>>> >>>>>> If I have to use Google to find a data sheet, I figure the company must not >>>>>> make the parts anymore or at least aren't looking for sales. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Price = 0.3 USD in volume, at least 25% cheaper than the STM32 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where did you get a price? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Page 11: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://site.eettaiwan.com/events/iot/201607/pdf/GigaDevice-GD32-Cortex-M3-MCU-ECCN.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, a BS marketing price. Which part, what quantity... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The process is split, so one is logic and SRAM. The other is flash. Always cheaper to separate technologies >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Huh? Having two die is not so cheap. If two separate die are "always" >>>>>>>> better, why do they combine the Flash with CPU in most cases for chips in >>>>>>>> this range? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case it's cheaper, as far as I know because they only pay ARM licencing for a chip without flash, and they have good grip on the flash technology >>>>>> >>>>>> Who says it is cheaper? If you can't buy them it doesn't matter. I can't >>>>>> find anyone who sells them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Operation from SRAM draws less current >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see that in the numbers in the data sheet. ~300 uA/MHz. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not specifically stated. For reference look up the STM32 datasheet >>>>>> >>>>>> The point is 300 uA/MHz is not even in the running for low power these days. >>>>>> The fact that running from SRAM *should* use less current doesn't mean >>>>>> their chips are competitive. I believe the forefront of low power ARMs is >>>>>> in the 100 uA/MHz these days. Am I mistaken? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Check for example the STM32F130 datasheet, page 42: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/datasheet/33/d4/6f/1d/df/0b/4c/6d/CD00161566.pdf/files/CD00161566.pdf/jcr:content/translations/en.CD00161566.pdf >>>>> >>>>> SRAM is about 10% lower power consumption than flash >>>> >>>> You are comparing the Giga part to an ST part that is 10 years old, right? >>>> 300 uA/MHz is not on the forefront of power efficiency. TI and Silicon Labs >>>> have CM3 and CM4 parts that can reach power consumption below 100 uA/MHz. >>>> >>>> The issue is not about features but about specifications. I don't care how >>>> an MCU gets low power. The Giga part is not in the realm of what is >>>> considered low power anymore. >>>> >>> Yes, but you certainly won't get a low power ST part in that price range >>> >>> Low power is a sales feature until they all have that feature 😀 >>> >>> Comparing apples to apples 🍎 >> >> The point is you are claiming the use of an external Flash allows *lower* >> power operation. That is irrelevant when the chip spec is *much* worse than >> others in the same performance class. If you want to compare prices, then >> compare prices. This isn't about apples. >> >> The $0.30 price is not a quote, it is a mythical price based on buying some >> enormous quantity. Since their parts aren't actually offered for sale >> anywhere that I would be buying them it doesn't matter what price a >> marketing sheet says they go for. I did find Symmetry that offers them for >> $0.71. >> > Some parts are not offered in public, they are offered with distributors frame work agreements In other words, if you aren't buying a million a year, buzz off! Got it! -- Rick C
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 16:08 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 19:22 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-31 23:27 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 12:58 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-01 10:14 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 14:56 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 18:21 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-01 15:37 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 18:40 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-01 15:55 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 19:03 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-01 16:47 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-01 16:51 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-06-01 17:12 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 20:17 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 20:04 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 01:13 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 11:21 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 09:51 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 10:01 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 13:38 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-02 10:47 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 15:22 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-02 12:36 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 15:54 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-01 20:24 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 01:19 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-02 12:47 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 09:56 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-02 17:35 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 15:43 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-02 18:58 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-02 16:27 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-02 19:31 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 15:09 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-03 20:35 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 20:10 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 01:22 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-02 12:50 -0400
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 01:24 -0700
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-02 15:38 +0200
Re: Reliability of microcontroller silicon die glue on top of another die krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-02 12:51 -0400
csiph-web