That is often the problem. Sometimes a buck fifty is the pain threshold.
Not in this ATMega case, the 2560 is very expensive but comes with lots
of ADC and analog muxes and all that. Things that will cost extra with a
FPGA solution and eat real estate.
For $3 however, you can get a
For $3 I can get a big DSP.
What "big" DSP can you get for $3? It has been a while since I looked
hard at DSP chips, but I don't recall any I would call remotely "big"
for $3. The TI chips that would be "big" are the TMS6xxx line which
start somewhere around $20 the last time I looked and that requires all
memory and I/O to be separate. The smaller DSP chips that you can get
for the $3 range are not "big" in any sense and only a very few of them
include Flash memory. So you still need another chip.
Even a "small" FPGA can run rings around a DSP when it comes to
performance. Usually "big" in DSPs means fast and when you want really
fast DSP you use an FPGA with all the parallelism you can handle. DSPs
can't touch FPGAs for speed, even with low power.
Not in every town but sometimes way out there. For most work it doesn't
matter where the worker is but with uC programming that is often not so.
Mainly because things have to be optimized right there at the big
machine which for one reason or the other can't be moved into a
programmer's bedroom corner in Upper Sendusky. Then it does begin to
matter whether or not you have to start flying in people.
It's the same with myself. For many assigments I could as well live on
East Rarotonga. But not for EMC or noise fixing jobs with larger
installations.
I'm confused. Are you saying that on most jobs you don't care where the
programmer lives and works? I think that is what you said, but it
sounds like you are trying to disagree with me.
Could happen.
What I often find is people only doing Altera or only Xilinx. With uC
it's a bit easier, a PIC guy can be cajoled into programming an AVR,
usually.
I'm totally device agnostic. I have worked with all brands other than
MicroSemi (formerly Actel). I even worked with Lucent which was bought
by Lattice and I believe is still sold and supported (but not the GD XP
line which I had designed into a cash cow product and will have to
redesign now). Ever hear of Concurrent? They were bought by Atmel.
Their devices were followed by the AT40K. I worked with the Concurrent
devices. lol So you can see I go way back.
I've used schematic based tools and both VHDL and Verilog. I've worked
with the vendor's tools and third party tools including the NeoCAD tools
which became Xilinx tools when Xilinx bought them.
If anyone tells you they only know one brand of FPGA you are talking to
an FPGA weenie. I find MCUs to vary a *great* deal more than FPGAs in
terms of usage. MCUs need all sorts of start up code and peripheral
drivers, clock control, etc, etc, etc. FPGAs not so much. They mostly
have the same features and most of that can be inferred from the HDL so
you never need to look too hard under the hood.
In short, there is a lot of FUD about FPGAs. Talk to someone who
doesn't buy into the FUD.
Things quickly unravel when you start relying on real hardware that is
on uC but not on FPGA. Comparators, ADCs, analog muxes, for example.
If you really need it all on a single chip, then yes, you won't find
that on so many FPGAs although Microsemi has their Fusion line with
analog. My cash cow uses a single FPGA and a stereo CODEC. That was
smaller than any MCU design because the MCU would still require the
CODEC (CD quality) and some of the control logic and interface could not
be done with any conventional MCU. I had to vary the speed of the CODEC
clock via an ADPLL to synchronize it with an incoming data stream. I
don't know how to do that with an MCU and no logic. But I can do it all
with FPGA logic and no MCU.
Last week I reviewed a design with some larger FPGA on there. What I
found fairly disgusting was how much they had to be babied with the
power sequencing. uCs don't have that problem.
If you want to work with the wrong device, then you will find it hard to
work with. There are still single voltage devices on the market. If
this was an old design, most likely it was a Spartan 3 or similar era
device when they (for still unknown reasons) used three, yes, count
them, *three* voltages on the FPGA. The 2.5 volt aux supply was there
solely for the configuration interface which was normally to a 3.3 volt
device! Only from Xilinx...
If this was a new device, then I guess they picked one based on
something other than ease of use, eh? Don't assume all FPGAs are the same.
You are aware that there are Flash based FPGAs that don't require the
external Flash chip, right?