Last month BDTI completed an analysis of the latest DSP cores from the three leading core licensors. Paging through the analysis, I noticed some striking similarities between these competing cores. All three cores use flexible, multi-issue architectures. All three use RISC-like instruction sets. And all three use a mix of 16- and 32-bit instructions.
Interestingly, these basic architectural features are also found in many high-end embedded general-purpose processors (GPP). And the similarities between DSPs and GPPs are growing: In the last few years, GPPs have added many DSP-like features, while DSPs have added GPP-like features.
It almost seems as if processor designers have agreed on what the perfect embedded processor should look like, and that all architectures are converging on this design. Indeed, the announcements I’ve seen in recent months suggest that the trend towards architectural similarity will continue.
A casual observer might think that because processors are becoming more alike, no processor will hold an advantage over its competitors for long. This may be true to a certain extent, but there will continue to be important differences between architectures. These differences often reflect differences in target markets. For example, some processors include video-oriented instructions but not communications-oriented instructions, while the reverse is true for other processors. Even two chips based on the same architecture can have quite different characteristics. For example, one chip might be fast but power-hungry, while another is slower but more energy-efficient.
There are also huge differences between processors in areas such as tool quality, availability of application software, and on-chip integration. Again, the differences often reflect differences in target markets. For example, some processors have peripherals and coprocessors designed for consumer electronics, while others have supporting blocks designed for telecommunications infrastructure.
One upshot of all of this is that vendor focus will play an increasingly important role in distinguishing embedded processors from one another. As a result, vendors who focus on markets where they are already strong will develop momentum that will be hard for competitors to overcome. Vendors who are not focused on a given application will find it increasingly difficult to remain relevant in that application. And vendors who are not already in a given market will find it increasingly difficult to enter that market due to the need to provide comprehensive, application-focused solutions.
For processor vendors, my advice is to pick your battles carefully. While there is nothing wrong with providing general-purpose solutions, I think it will become increasingly necessary for vendors to concentrate their efforts on application-specific solutions. And even if your processors can theoretically compete in a wide range of applications, you can only provide focused solutions for a limited number of applications.
For system developers, my advice is to pay close attention to a vendor’s target markets and market share when selecting a processor. Vendors who are marginal players in a market may not be able to sustain business in that market—possibly leaving you stranded when it comes time to build a second-generation product.
Add new comment