Post by thread:[SX]: dsp for pic

SXs can overcome the speed objections and simple multiply by a constant and accumulate operations can be executed in a surprisingly few instructions (see www.sxlist.com/techref/piclist/codegen/constdivmul.htm for Nikolai Golovchenko code generator for multiplication and division by a constant which now supports the SXs) I wonder if SXs aren't being used some times for DSP. You are certainly correct about the memory limitations. --- James Newton 1-619-652-0593 spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTsxlist.com SX FAQ: http://www.sxlist.com {Original Message removed}

Andy Warren wrote: >info <.....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > >> I hear microchip are releasing a 16 bit micro controller with DSP >> core next year. ...... > Given Microchip's past performance with regard to production > schedules for new architectures, I'd be VERY surprised if they > hit their "early 2002" date... Which is too bad, because there > will be significant competition for the dsPIC's target market by > then, and it would be a shame if Microchip missed the boat. > Anyone know when the Scenix/Ubicom IP2000 is slated to hit the streets? -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listservKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

As of right now, you can expect to see it in general availability in Q3 2001. {Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Michaels [.....oricomKILLspam.....USWEST.NET] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:35 AM > To: EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: [SX]: dsp for pic > > > Andy Warren wrote: > >info <PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > > > >> I hear microchip are releasing a 16 bit micro controller with DSP > >> core next year. > ...... > > Given Microchip's past performance with regard to production > > schedules for new architectures, I'd be VERY surprised if they > > hit their "early 2002" date... Which is too bad, because there > > will be significant competition for the dsPIC's target market by > > then, and it would be a shame if Microchip missed the boat. > > > > Anyone know when the Scenix/Ubicom IP2000 is slated to hit > the streets? > > -- > http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! > email @spam@listservKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body > > -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email KILLspamlistservKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

{Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: James Newton [SMTP:RemoveMEjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTPICLIST.COM] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 6:16 PM > To: spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: [SX]: dsp for pic > > SXs can overcome the speed objections and simple multiply by a constant > and > accumulate operations can be executed in a surprisingly few instructions > (see > www.sxlist.com/techref/piclist/codegen/constdivmul.htm > for Nikolai Golovchenko code generator for multiplication and division by > a > constant which now supports the SXs) > > I wonder if SXs aren't being used some times for DSP. > > You are certainly correct about the memory limitations. > > --- > James Newton > 1-619-652-0593 > TakeThisOuTjamesnewtonEraseMEspam_OUTsxlist.com > SX FAQ: http://www.sxlist.com > Even a 100MHz SX wouldn't be able to touch the performance of most of the basic DSP's in most applications, but as you say it probably has sufficient power for many "lightweight" DSP apps. OTOH, DSP's are virtualy useless at port related operations where micros such as the PIC and SX excel. Microchips new dsPIC should offer the best of both worlds. It is allegedly instruction compatible with the PIC, obviously with extra instructions for MAC etc. Personaly I can't wait to have a fiddle with one, hope they do a decent eval board. Mike -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

Stephen Holland wrote: >As of right now, you can expect to see it in general availability in Q3 >2001. Thanks Steve, there is just enough description on the website to whet one's appetite - yes?. BTW, do you have any idea why your guys didn't ever do an SX48/52 in PLCC? Sure would be nice for smallish production runs. thanks, - danM -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseME.....mitvma.mit.edu