Prev: Rayleighchan function in matlab
Next: SNR of Speech
From: SYL on 17 Jun 2008 19:43
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...(a)danvillesignal.com> wrote:
> steve <bungalow_st...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:ae9e8191-9677-47a6-9d66-
> 9b2e52b53...(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jun 16, 3:41 am, SYL <sya...(a)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.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Rayleighchan function in matlab
Next: SNR of Speech