• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 40 subscribers
  • Views 655 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.

CC3x20 vs CC2650: recommendation

Lars Heinrichs
Intellectual 460 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2640, CC2650

Hello everyone!

I am currently looking to select an MCU for an industrial application.
The application requires a few interfaces only (1x SPI, 30x IO with IO expander, 1x UART, 1x I2C) plus a wireless interface.
This interface may be WiFi or Bluetooth and is used for configuration and firmware updates.
CC2640/CC2650 or CC3220/3120/3100 pre-certified modules look very promising.

I would like some help in deciding what module should be used. Our main focus is easy/streamlined firmware development.

  1. Target hardware function: Controlling several relais based on sensor data, not time critical. Wireless interface for user.
  2. not important: Price, wifi or bluetooth, power consumption, data rate
  3. important: update over the air, software stacks for wireless interface, easy software interface for application
  4. All CC... devices support update over the air. Any major differences between BT and WiFi versions?
  5. Stacks are provided for WiFi and Bluetooth. They probably work similar? What is easier to use and modify in the application?
  6. The WiFi CC... devices provide TCP/IP, HTTP etc so could probably run a websever without too much effort? Can the webserver run on the M0 or would this be part of the application? Example?

What CC would you recommend for this application and why?

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 33805 points
    Hi Lars,

    The list doesn't provide enough information on the used case to be able to choose one over the other. I believe the the Wi-FI offers easier OTA updates since the device can always be connected to the AP(cloud) directly

    Regards,
    Charles O
  • 0 in reply to Charles Oladimeji
    Intellectual 460 points

    Hello Charles,

    thanks for your reply!

    What information would help you to help me?
    The system is meant to enable/disable external devices based on sensor data.
    Measure, do some lightweight calculations and decide to open/close some external relays.
    Measureing/switching will be done once a minute, so real time is absolutely not a critical aspect.

    Cloud connection of the devices is not planed, as no constant wifi connection can be assumed in the use case.
    The only purpose of the wireless interface is to provide an interface for communication with mobile devices.
    Both configuration and update will be done with help of mobile devices.

    From my point of view, wifi and bluetooth solutions should both be well suited for the use case.
    I just wanted to know if one or the other is more handy on the firmware side or if it doesnt really make a difference.

  • 0 in reply to Lars Heinrichs
    TI__Mastermind 33805 points
    Hi,

    If you do not need the constant wifi connection and the only wireless communication needed is for interfacing with a mobile device, then Bluetooth should be a better option.

    Some Bluetooth and wifi devices are under the Simplelink platform so firmware should be similar.
    www.ti.com/.../overview.html

    Regards,
    Charles O