Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "John Heenan" <l10@...> wrote:
> > As for flash speed, I understand LPC is not as fast as SAM and maybe
> > even OKI.  Have a look at guaranteed speeds and write/erase times.  
> > I dont know why you consider LPC flash as fastest.
> 
> This is bizarre. It is well known and accepted execution from flash 
> is 'fast' in LPCs. The MAM is a well publicised feature of the LPC.
> 
> To quote from the manual:
> 
> "Simply put, the Memory Accelerator Module (MAM) attempts to have the 
> next ARM instruction that will be needed in its latches in time to 
> prevent CPU fetch stalls."
> 
> While flash speed maxes out, Philips made a clever decision to allow  
> more flash contents (128 bits) to be grabbed than required 
> immediately, while not implementing a full featured cache.

As I said, comparison tables tend to give a more realistic picture

I have compared raw flash speed (before cache or MAM) on SAM with LPC
and the values are SAM=30MHz vs LPC=20MHz.

Lets look at erase speeds: SAM=6ms (page) and 15ms (full) vs LPC=400ms
Big difference if you need to use flash to store data at run time.

I read promotional literature.  But I tend to look at figures i can
compare and the difference between MAM and tractional caching is that
straighforward.

The beauty of benchmarks (like statistics) is that they predict the
likely outcome, but never tell you the actual outcome for a particular
case.

I have written C code make GCC look better *and* worse than another
compiler.  I know first hand what goes on in producing promotional
literature.  I think most people do.

If you assume whatever the manual says is the whole truth, it should
come as no surprise to you that that you consider that product in it
best light.

Jaya