## 5 Results and Discussion  
The hardware features of the different platforms evaluated are compared in Table 3. In addition, their power consumption in the different modes of operation is represented in Figure 5.  
First, it should be noted that USRPs lack a processor, even when they require one to be used. This is because these platforms have been conceived as peripherals and not as autonomous devices. As explained in the introduction, they rely on high performance chips; therefore, as shown in Figure 5, their consumption is much higher. However, they also have a better radio performance than the other platforms with a wider operating frequency range (70 MHz to 6 GHz), higher instantaneous bandwidth (56 MHz), etc. On the other hand, YetiMote is the most energy-efficient platform. It consumes 103.9 mW in transmit mode, 96.3 mW in receive mode, and only 17 \(\mu\)W in sleep mode. This efficiency is possible thanks to the use of highly integrated COTS transceivers and an ultra-low-power MCU. However, this architecture, with a single processor and without programmable logic where certain tasks can be parallelized, can be a limitation for those applications with a high computational load or with strict time requirements. In terms of radio flexibility, this platform has three transceivers that allow it to operate in three different bands, but none of them provide access to the baseband I/Q signals; therefore, experimentation with the lower layers of the communications stack is constrained to the transceivers' configuration options. In conclusion, YetiMote is a suitable platform for long-term deployments thanks \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration Parameter** & **YetiMote** & **MamotE SDR** & **B200 mini and B200** & **MIGOU BB** & **MIGOU I/Q** \\  & & & **USRPs** & **Mode** & **Mode** \\ \hline Active Clock & 48 MHz & 10 MHz & 32 MHz & 50 MHz & 50 MHz \\ Standby Clock & 32 kHz & 32 kHz & Unknown & 1 MHz & 1 MHz \\ Operating Band & 2.4 GHz & 2.4 GHz & 2.4 GHz & 2.4 GHz & 2.4 GHz \\ Modulation & GMSK & GMSK & GMSK & BPSK & GMSK \\ Data Rate & 250 kbps & 250 kbps & 250 kbps & 200 kbps & 250 kbps \\ Transmission Power & 0 dBm & 0 dBm & 0 dBm & 0 dBm & 0 dBm \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Configuration parameters used in the evaluation tests carried out with the platforms. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Hardware Feature** & **YetiMote [16]** & **MamotE SDR** & **B200 mini/B210** & **MIGOU** \\  & & **[29]** & **USRPs [18]** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Processer} & ARM Cortex-M4 & ARM Cortex-M3 & - & ARM Cortex-M3 \\  & Up to 80 MHz & Up to 100 MHz & - & Up to 142 MHz \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4} Programmable & - & 6 k & 75 k/150 k & 56k \\ \cline{1-1} Logic Elements & \multirow{2}{*}{SPIRT1 (\(\times\)2)} & \multirow{2}{*}{-} & \multirow{2}{*}{433 MHz, 68 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands} \\  & & CC2500 (\(\times\)1) & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4} Operating Freq. Range & \multirow{2}{*}{GHz bands} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.4 GHz bands} & \multirow{2}{*}{70 MHz to 6 GHz} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4} Access to I/Q Signals—Max. & - & & 22 MSps & 61.44 MSps & 4 MSps \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4} Sample Rate & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Hardware features of the different platforms evaluated. to its low energy consumption. However, it presents important limitations for experimentation and research in CR and edge computing. In between of these two kinds of representative platforms are MarmotE SDR and our proposed platform MIGOU. The former consumes 287.4 mW in receive mode and 851.7 mW when transmitting. As already mentioned in Section 2 and as can be seen in Figure 5, the MAX2830 transceiver represents 60% and 86% of those power consumptions, respectively. If we compare these values with those of the MIGOU platform operating in I/Q mode, like an SDR system, a large improvement is observed, especially in transmit mode.