What Hardware Next Thingy53 or nRF5340_DK

[PjGlasso]

Hello there,

So wanting to test some Coded PHY for a longer range project at the end of the day.,

I got a while ago the nRF52840_DK development board which I have used successfully for many samples and experiments. Getting more into the NRF_SDK 2.6.1  I would like to get the second device for the P2P scenario at long range. I want to know which would be the better second piece to get The thingy53 or the nRF5340_DK.

Some input I got was the Thingy53 is a prototyping platform no hardware to design, the DK boards are for Development along with hardware I/O and peripherals.

Anyone have an opinion on what they feel comes up short with either. or why one is better than the other. the $$$ is about the same so that isn't a factor in this.

Thanks for your comments and contribution.

GL :-) PJ Glasso

[Hung Bui]

Hi PJ, 
I would say to get both. 

The nRF5340DK give you more freedom with the hardware. All the GPIO pins are available if you want to connect to external peripheral or communication. It's also supported out of the box on most of the samples in NCS. I think it's a good place to get started with nRF53.  

The Thingy53 has the advantages of having many sensors, a big battery and a PMIC for power management and charging. It also has a RF FEM on board that maybe useful for your application. 

However the Thingy53 doesn't come with a programmer/debugger. So you will need an external one for that. You can use the nRF53DK as the programmer/debugger for the Thingy53. Also not all samples have been built and tested with Thingy 53. The number of available GPIO pins is limited. 

What I would suggest is to get familiar with the NRF53 by using a DK and continue the development to the Thingy53 if you want to make a prototype. 

[PjGlasso]

Hi there,

Yes that makes better sense to me , The DK would be my first choice and the thingy53 second.

I like the range extender idea, but compared to a coded PHY connection how they stack up.

I'll order the DK today.. Should be comfortable next to the nRF52840 I have and extend my testing and development to get closer to the end goal of a coded PHY connections.

Thanks for the input. 

GL :-) PjGlasso :v:

[Hung Bui]

Hi PJ, 
I think it's a good plan. 
Regarding your question, you can achieve way more range with the FEM, but of course the trade off is the higher current consumption and higher peak current. Also you may have to deal with the regulations if you do more than 10dbm. 
There is a good video by one of our FAEs comparing the range of the FEM and the nRF52840DK: 
www.youtube.com/watch