• State Not Answered
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 15660 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 104733
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

CC2541 versus nRF51822

Gilson

Gentlemen,

I apologize if this is not the correct place to post this question.

I have a potential project to start a BLE project but their requirement would be start a new design with the CC2541.

However, I would like to tell them to use the nRF51822 but I want to present good technical arguments.

Is there anyone here familiar with the CC2541? Please PM me and let me know.

Thanks, Gil

Parents
  • 0

    I like the first answer to this question and agree with it.

    I also started with the TI chip and moved away from it quite quickly.

    1. The toolchain. TI is totally wedded to IAR, you want to build for that chip, you need IAR and it's expensive, and it's not very good either(*). True that Nordic's primary development tool has been and is Keil, but you can at least get a limited version for free and Nordic does support and supply templates for straight gcc development, which is always free. People have successfully used Eclipse, I use Crossworks (I have the non-commercial license but if I ever needed the commercial one, it's not that expensive) and the latest devkits support MBED too. ARM is clearly working on making MBED better and more standalone, there's a whole community behind it with bucketloads of available source code and libraries to aid development. That is worth time and money.

    2. The TI chip is based on a pretty old processor. That's partly why the toolchain support is as described above. I think the Cortex M0 is a better processor the ARM series is a better place to be going forwards.

    3. Support from Nordic is excellent. Take a look through the support forums here and look at the quality, in-depth, answers from the guys there, Ole, Stefan and the rest. Not every question gets answered, but most of the understandable, interesting ones do :). I've opened a number of support cases as well asking for help ordering kits to help with the underlying sniffer protocol and they've helped me out professionally and rapidly every single time. I don't know how good the TI support is, I never had to use it, but great support can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful, timely or late, project.

    4. Nordic continues to develop the line. They recently introduced chips with more RAM, which I think is necessary as BTLE devices start to get more complex and we move from BTLE 4.0 to 4.1 and I guess soon 4.2, they are all going to take more on-chip resources. The latest release silicon fixes most of the product anomalies (i.e. silicon bugs), so you're making a choice at quite a good time.

    It does all of course depend on what you're building and your engineering constraints. Obviously you should check specs for power consumption etc, speed, available GPIOs, I/Os etc. but absent any shopstoppers there, I'd never go back to the TI chip.

    (*) - if you look hard enough there is a huge long thread on the TI support forums about the lack of open source tools, it's rumbled on for two years, it's a big issue and lots of people on that thread bailed out and went Nordic at some point.

Reply
  • 0

    I like the first answer to this question and agree with it.

    I also started with the TI chip and moved away from it quite quickly.

    1. The toolchain. TI is totally wedded to IAR, you want to build for that chip, you need IAR and it's expensive, and it's not very good either(*). True that Nordic's primary development tool has been and is Keil, but you can at least get a limited version for free and Nordic does support and supply templates for straight gcc development, which is always free. People have successfully used Eclipse, I use Crossworks (I have the non-commercial license but if I ever needed the commercial one, it's not that expensive) and the latest devkits support MBED too. ARM is clearly working on making MBED better and more standalone, there's a whole community behind it with bucketloads of available source code and libraries to aid development. That is worth time and money.

    2. The TI chip is based on a pretty old processor. That's partly why the toolchain support is as described above. I think the Cortex M0 is a better processor the ARM series is a better place to be going forwards.

    3. Support from Nordic is excellent. Take a look through the support forums here and look at the quality, in-depth, answers from the guys there, Ole, Stefan and the rest. Not every question gets answered, but most of the understandable, interesting ones do :). I've opened a number of support cases as well asking for help ordering kits to help with the underlying sniffer protocol and they've helped me out professionally and rapidly every single time. I don't know how good the TI support is, I never had to use it, but great support can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful, timely or late, project.

    4. Nordic continues to develop the line. They recently introduced chips with more RAM, which I think is necessary as BTLE devices start to get more complex and we move from BTLE 4.0 to 4.1 and I guess soon 4.2, they are all going to take more on-chip resources. The latest release silicon fixes most of the product anomalies (i.e. silicon bugs), so you're making a choice at quite a good time.

    It does all of course depend on what you're building and your engineering constraints. Obviously you should check specs for power consumption etc, speed, available GPIOs, I/Os etc. but absent any shopstoppers there, I'd never go back to the TI chip.

    (*) - if you look hard enough there is a huge long thread on the TI support forums about the lack of open source tools, it's rumbled on for two years, it's a big issue and lots of people on that thread bailed out and went Nordic at some point.

Children
Related