Breaking News
News & Analysis

Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle

2/14/2011 05:01 AM EST
13 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Kinnar
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
Kinnar   2/14/2011 8:09:55 AM
NO RATINGS
Advancements in the Base Station chip-sets is extremely required to be the maximum efficiency out of it, but simultaneously it is also required that the BTS will support all previous and future technologies and standards, by one or another way, otherwise it will be very difficulty situation in a country like India where the service provider will be having their presence thought the country.

Davide Barra
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
Davide Barra   2/14/2011 4:44:55 PM
NO RATINGS
Our Company is pleased for being mentioned upon the collaboration with Texas Instruments and would like to highlight that the correct name is Azcom Technology and not Axcom, as reported in the article herein. For further details, please go at http://www.azcom.it.

KB3001
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
KB3001   2/14/2011 7:13:50 PM
NO RATINGS
I wonder what FPGA companies such as Xilinx and Altera have to say about this two-horse race? Any comments out there?

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
junko.yoshida   2/14/2011 9:14:45 PM
NO RATINGS
I do apologize for my misspelling. It's my bad. Sorry!

old account Frank Eory
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
old account Frank Eory   2/14/2011 11:22:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Why would they have anything to say about it? Making a "base station on a chip" is way outside of their core businesses.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
junko.yoshida   2/15/2011 1:29:56 AM
NO RATINGS
I think KB3001 does have a point; FPGA guys are also trying to get into the base station market by replacing DSP and Microprocessor functionalities. But what determines the winner in the end is not the hardware functionalities; but credible tools and ecosystem they can offer on the network equipment market.

Jayakumar
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
Jayakumar   2/15/2011 2:05:42 AM
NO RATINGS
Very good write up. We in Epigon (www.epigon.in) use Virtex 5 FPGA for OFDM Phy. For higher bandwidth ( may be higher side of 1.5 mbps), we found even Virtex 5 not able to provide computing resources. My question is : How much bandwidth processing cab be done in these two DSP's ( from TI and Freescale). In a sense, is it possible to mod and demod more then 2 mbps OFDM phy in the above DSP's. In case yes, then epigon will be happy to migrate from FPGA's to DSP's. For low bandwidth Modems we use TI5510 DSP and Blackfin DSP. you can reach me at jk@epigon.in

viveka27
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
viveka27   2/15/2011 5:47:54 AM
NO RATINGS
Very good write up. "Freescale is rolling out a scalable, multimode wireless base station ....designed to scale from small cells (Femto and Pico) .... " the Femto cell referred here is what Qualcomm also is after??? Can you please also write on where does Qualcomm stand in this race?

05
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
05   2/15/2011 6:36:40 AM
NO RATINGS
How about LSI? As we know LSI also participate into this game and release ACP multicore and Starcore DSP. It seems they are targeting wirelesss application too. How to compare with TI/Freescale?

ajoneill
User Rank
Author
re: Freescale vs. TI: Base station SoC battle
ajoneill   2/15/2011 4:33:55 PM
NO RATINGS
I believe the FPGA players have a challenge defending their base station position because their chips cost so much. Moving to CPU+DSP SoCs should be able to reduce the semiconductor bill of materials by something like **90%**.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed