<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/cfs-file/__key/system/syndication/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Power consumption vs Cache</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/104786/power-consumption-vs-cache</link><description>Dear Nordic, 
 
 The table above shows that some nRF52 have a Cache (&amp;quot;high end&amp;quot;) and some have not. 
 Except by performing tests, how to know the impact on performance, especially the current consumption? 
 I&amp;#39;ve check the datasheet and the dev zone and</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 13</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/104786/power-consumption-vs-cache" /><item><title>RE: Power consumption vs Cache</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/thread/451110?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:16:22 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">137ad170-7792-4731-bb38-c0d22fbe4515:ba8caf03-383b-4b25-98ea-c364874379e3</guid><dc:creator>hmolesworth</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;In addition to Susheel&amp;#39;s links you might find my reply here helpful. Since a cache miss uses more power than cache disabled a test is really the only way to get a measure of consumption differences. A while ago I did such a test, not sure where I put the results though.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/68934/instruction-cache-i-cache-using-and-user-guide"&gt;instruction-cache&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: Power consumption vs Cache</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/thread/451053?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:46:46 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">137ad170-7792-4731-bb38-c0d22fbe4515:2b86a4b9-c728-42c9-a59b-8747003c127a</guid><dc:creator>Susheel Nuguru</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I do not think we have direct current consumption difference numbers for that but you can deduce that from the numbers given here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://infocenter.nordicsemi.com/index.jsp?topic=%2Fps_nrf52840%2Fcpu.html&amp;amp;cp=5_0_0_3_0_2_0&amp;amp;anchor=unique_1608135448"&gt;CPU performance for nRF52840&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;and compare that with&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://infocenter.nordicsemi.com/index.jsp?topic=%2Fps_nrf52805%2Fcpu.html&amp;amp;cp=5_6_0_3_0_0&amp;amp;anchor=topic"&gt;CPU performance for nRF52805&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Interesting is to see the wait states that is relevant here in current consumption.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>