Article View: comp.dsp
Article #15756K vs. c50 vs. dsp1610
From: Mike Taylor
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:10
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:10
20 lines
1484 bytes
1484 bytes
I'm looking at three chips. 56156 @ 33ns/instruction 320c50 @ 35ns/instruction dsp1610 @ 25ns/instruction Has anyone done a comparative analysis of these three chips? It's pretty tough to determine which of these would be best. For instance, just yesterday I noticed that an external write on a c50 takes two cycles and if a read precedes the write, the write takes 3 cycles. This is a pretty serious hit if you need to do a lot of memory accesses. This jucy peice of information is not listed in the data book at all until you get to the wayyyyyyy back where the timing diagrams are and you look at the smalllllllll print. This penalty doesn't exist in the C25 becuase this part uses a two-phase clocking scheme and an entire read or write cycle can be performed within the boundaries of a single clock cycle. The c50 operates at the boundaries. It looks like the 1610 does not suffer from this problem, but I have not gotten very far along in my analysis of this part. I haven't seriously looked at the 56156, yet. Thanks for any insight. -mike
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<l7duqeINN8gr@male.EBay.Sun.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!beav!miketShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!beav!miket From: miket@beav.EBay.Sun.COM (Mike Taylor) Newsgroups: comp.dsp Subject: 56K vs. c50 vs. dsp1610 Date: 29 Jul 1992 20:10:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 23 Distribution: world Message-ID: <l7duqeINN8gr@male.EBay.Sun.COM> Reply-To: miket@beav.EBay.Sun.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: beav.ebay.sun.com