• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Answers 3 answers
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 473 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DS90UB960-Q1: Do we have the comparison table or document with 960/962/964

Zirui Su
Expert 5340 points
Part Number: DS90UB960-Q1

Hi team

Do we have the comparison table or document with 960/962/964? I do not find it and could you please help to provide it and I think it would be helpful for customer to choose the right device and know what the differences are among all of them, thank you.

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 107860 points

    Hello Zirui,

    the main difference are :

    The 960 supports up to 4 Cameras with max datarate of 4.16Gbps/Camera. It has two CSI-2 output ports.
    The 962 supports up to 4 Cameras with max datarate of 3Gbps/Camera. It has one CSI-2 output port.
    The 964 supports up to 4 Cameras with max datarate of 1.9Gbps/Camera. It has two CSI-2 output ports.

  • 0 in reply to Hamzeh Jaradat
    TI__Expert 5340 points

    Hi Hamzeh,

    960 and 962 I have understood but what about 964? Why it only support 1.9Gbps and I do not see it in 964 datasheet. 962 supports up to 4 cameras I know that we could use 4 cameras with 4 953s but if the 4 camera all operates at 3Gbps I think the bandwidth of 962 could not bear.

  • 0 in reply to Zirui Su
    TI__Guru** 107860 points

    Hello Zirui,

    please provide your use case and the exact resolution, FPS, Data type and number of connected camera, and I will tell you what are the best options for your design.

  • 0 in reply to Hamzeh Jaradat
    TI__Expert 5340 points

    Customer would like to use mixed solution which means using 913 933 2*935 to connect the 964, 4 cameras used and they would like to evaluate the 2MP resolution with 30 FPS each port, could it be feasible?

  • 0 in reply to Zirui Su
    TI__Guru** 107860 points

    Yes, 964 can support the resolution and number of cameras you mentioned.

  • 0 in reply to Hamzeh Jaradat
    TI__Expert 5340 points

    HI Hamzeh,

    Thanks for your clarify, I also obtain the customer design consideration block diagram below:

    Besides here is our process of calculation （refer to the table below), hope you could review and correct it:

    Camera1:
    PCLK=1280*800*30*2*(1+15%) = 70.656Mhz
    FPD-LINK line rate:
    According to the range of PCLK, only 12bit HF mode or 10bit mode can be selected right?
    12bit HF mode: 70.656*(2/3)*28 = 1318.912 Mbps
    10bit mode: 70.656/2*28 = 989.184 Mbps
    CSI-2 interface bandwidth:
    1280*800*30*2*8*(1+25%) = 614.4Mbps


    Camera2:
    CSI-2 interface bandwidth: 1280*720*30*2*8*(1+25%) = 552.96Mbps


    Camera3:
    CSI-2 interface bandwidth: 1280*720*30*2*8*(1+25%) = 552.96Mbps


    Camera4:
    Currently, there is no specific pixel format parameter, PCLK is estimated as 100Mhz of the 913 chip, and the data format is calculated according to RGB888 (By the way, could this cover the maximum data throughput of the 913 chip?)
    PCLK=100Mhz
    FPD-LINK line rate:
    According to the range of PCLK, only 10bit mode can be selected
    10bit mode: 100/2*28 = 1.4 Gbps
    CSI-2 interface bandwidth: 1280*800*30*3*8*(1+25%) = 921.6Mbps

    The total bandwidth required by the CSI-2 interface is
    614.4Mbps + 552.96Mbps + 552.96Mbps + 921.6Mbps = 2641.92Mbps ≈ 2.642Gbps

    Questions:

    1. Is this block diagram solution feasible? Could 962/964 be both proper for the solution? 

    2. For this application scenario, which chip do you recommend, DS90UB962 or DS90UB964?

  • 0 in reply to Zirui Su
    TI__Guru** 107860 points

    Hello Zirui,

    yes, this block diagram and configuration are supported using any UB96x Deserializer.

    I recommend you to use the UB962 since only one CSI-2 port is required. This DES is propably the more cost efective than the UB964.

    Note: from the table you have posted above, the UB913Q is not supported with the UB962 or UB964, so you shall use the UB913A instead.