• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 52 subscribers
  • Views 764 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.

CC2642R: vs cc2640r2

Hermann Menning
Expert 1305 points

Part Number: CC2642R
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2640R2F

Hello,

I have trouble comparing cc2642r to cc2640r2.

1. Is the cc2642r considered the successor to the cc2640r2?

2. Tx and rx power consumption has increased by 10-20% from cc2640r2 to cc2642r(comparing the spec sheets). Is that not in contradiction to what is said in your FAQ? (https://e2e.ti.com/support/wireless-connectivity/bluetooth/f/538/t/657842

2b. What improvements have been made to the radio from cc2640r2 to cc2642r? Mentioned by Sean2 in here https://e2e.ti.com/support/wireless-connectivity/bluetooth/f/538/t/660961?tisearch=e2e-sitesearch&keymatch=cc2642r%20vs%20cc2640r2f

3. Is there going to be OAD functionality for the cc2640r2 BLE5 SDK. If not, do I have any other options for firmware upgrades?

4. Is there going to be a OAD on-chip funtionality for the cc2642r BLE5 SDK?

5. Is there any roadmap available regarding the future development of the BLE5 SDKs?

As far as I can see, the cc2642r seems "heavier" for a lightweight coincell BLE application where connection stabilty(range) and power consumption are the main factors compared to the cc2640r2. What do you think?

I am sorry if this is a bit arbitraty but I have a hard time deciding between those two mcus. Please help me out!

Best Regards

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 106705 points
    Hi Hermann,

    1. Sort of. It is a more capable device with more memory. CC2640R2F is still an excellent choice for BLE applications not requiring Bluetooth 5 features though.

    2. The start-up and shut-down times are faster on CC2642R, so all-in-all the power consumption for typical BLE use cases is the same.

    3. No, due to lack of memory space. An alternative would be to use an external processor to take care of the FW update.

    4. Yes, soon :-)

    5. No. Are there any special features you are missing?

    If you need Bluetooth 5 I would recommend CC2642R. If not, it sounds like CC2640R2F is the right choice for you.

    Regards,
    Fredrik
  • 0 in reply to Fredrik K
    Expert 1305 points
    Hi Fredrik,

    2. Are you talking about the post- and preprocessing of connection events? The M4F main mcu still has to wake up for those, correct?

    4. Great! ;-)

    5. No, it would just be helpful knowing that a feature like onchip OAD is in development without the need to ask. Can you suggest any information channels?

    Do you have anything on the 2b. question?

    Thank you for your swift reply much appreciated!

    Best Regards.
  • 0 in reply to Hermann Menning
    TI__Guru** 106705 points
    Hi Hermann,

    2. The M4F wakes up for all radio events to initialise the radio. I am talking about the time required to wake-up from, and return to, Standby to any active mode.

    2 b. The Coded PHY sensitivity is better, and there is a few enhancements not directly associated to BLE for the platform in general.

    5. Just keep watching the regular quarterly releases.

    Regards,
    Fredrik