• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 81 subscribers
  • Views 409 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

TMS320C28343: Delfino C28343 DIM100 vs 28346 DIM168 controlCARD

Pawel Piwowarski87949
Intellectual 795 points
Part Number: TMS320C28343
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TMDSDOCK28343, CONTROLSUITE

For our POC based on C2834x processors we are evaluating the two controlCARDs C28343 DIM100 vs 28346 DIM168. From the hardware perspective we would much prefer the DIM168 version since the processor has more peripherals that we need and access to important pins like external clock generator input. However time and efficiency of preparing the prototype are also of importance and I'd like to ask what we will not have when we go for the DIM168 card ? I know it is not standard in terms of compatibility with development boards so one thing is we need to design our own base PCB but that is not a major minus (BTW - is the simple dev board shown in the Experimenter's Kit pdf on the website included in the package with the DIM100 card ?)
More importantly. does this "non-standardness" also mean that we will miss some software libraries or example applications available for DIM100 and standard development boards and not working for DIM168 ?
Any other practical impact we should take into account ?

Regards, Pawel

  • 0
    TI__Guru 62975 points

    For our POC based on C2834x processors we are evaluating the two controlCARDs C28343 DIM100 vs 28346 DIM168. From the hardware perspective we would much prefer the DIM168 version since the processor has more peripherals that we need and access to important pins like external clock generator input. However time and efficiency of preparing the prototype are also of importance and

    Pawel Piwowarski87949 said:
    I'd like to ask what we will not have when we go for the DIM168 card ?

    Looking at the schematics, I think the main difference in functionality between DIM100 and DIM168 is that the DIM100 has an on-board ADC for sensing voltages.

    Pawel Piwowarski87949 said:
    I know it is not standard in terms of compatibility with development boards so one thing is we need to design our own base PCB but that is not a major minus

    Correct, you may need to build your own DIM168 docking station if you cannot find one to purchase.  

    Pawel Piwowarski87949 said:
    (BTW - is the simple dev board shown in the Experimenter's Kit pdf on the website included in the package with the DIM100 card ?)

    Part numbers that begin with TMDSDOCK will typically include the docking station.  Part numbers that begin with TMDSCNCD will typically not include the docking station.  TMDSDOCK28343 includes the docking station.  TMDSCNCD28343 does not include the docking station.

    Pawel Piwowarski87949 said:
    More importantly. does this "non-standardness" also mean that we will miss some software libraries or example applications available for DIM100 and standard development boards and not working for DIM168 ?

    It appears to me that all of the GPIO signals that are brought out to the DIM100 dock are also available on the DIM168 dock so I would not expect any issues.  You can check the schematics to confirm for yourself.

    Pawel Piwowarski87949 said:
    Any other practical impact we should take into account ?

    You can access the design files in controlSUITE.