FTDI 8-bit Microcontroller - FT51A - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: benSTmax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 01:58:39 pm
content: It seems FTDI jumped in the 8-bit microcontroller bandwagon with their FT51Ahttp://www.ftdichip.com/Products/ICs/FT51.htmlDid anybody used this MCU yet?A brief presentation:1. CPU core is 8051-type running at 48MHz with a claimed 48MIPS@48MHz2. USB, UART, PWM, I2C, SPI, 8-bit parallel FIFO, 8-bit ADC3. UART/SPI/FIFO with DMA functions4. Up to 16 digital I/Os3. Lowest cost variant (when buying directly from FTDI. I couldn't get this parts on Digikey) is for FT51CS and its price is: £205.00 (or $292) for 100pcsMore information about the FT51A:FT51A Datasheet:http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_FT51A.pdfDevelopment board, Evaluation board and Debugger:http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/Modules/FT51AModules.htmFTDI official press release (dated Jan 6th 2016):http://www.ftdichip.com/Corporate/Press/FTDIPR63.pdfand a relatively new (Jan 7th 2016) press article on this MCU:http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/products/micros/ftdi-chip-adds-support-boards-for-ft51a-mcu-2016-01/I tried to look for more reasons or advantages of this MCU over the similar existing ones but I couldn't find something compelling.Similar parts from SiliconLabs (EFM8UB10F16G), Cypress (CYPD2103) or Microchip (PIC16F1455) cost ~$1/piece or less for 100pcs quantity (on Digikey).I am trying to understand why would someone use these FTDI FT51A parts which are more expensive than other similar micros.Would you use them(FT51A) instead of the other similar parts enumerated above (and others which I did not) and if so what would be the reasons for doing so?

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 02:50:33 pm
content: I guess they're just betting on people recognising the FTDI name, but after things like this (ironic that this thread is right next to it)...https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/...I don't think I'd want to use them.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 03:01:05 pm
content: The datasheet has a lot more information. Seems to be a fairly advanced / feature rich 8051.Maybe they are targeting those applications with 8051/USB?

author: benSTmax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 04:51:20 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 30, 2016, 03:01:05 pmExcept for the integrated hub, I cannot see much advantage over the SiLabs EFM8UB1 serieshttps://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/EFM8UB1_DataSheet.pdfThe price difference between the FT51A and the EFM8UB1 of ~$2 is too much to pay for the integrated USB hub. If I really want to hook-up 4 USB-MCUs on a single USB connection to the USB Host, I would rather use 4 x EFM8UB1 & an USB Hub chip, rather than chaining 4 x FT51A.Variant 1- EFM8UB1 and USB Hub chip4 x EFM8UB10F16G + 1 x USB Hub Chip (4 ports chip from Cypress, TI or Microchip) = 4 x $1 + 1 x $1.50 = $5.50vsVariant 2- FT51A only4 x FT51A = 4 x $2.92 = $11.68hard to beat the price point ...

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 12:02:32 am
content: They've also introduced theFT90Xseries of 32-bit MCUs, which uses their own, proprietary core. The architecture documentation hasn't been released yet, but it's a RISC with 32 GPRs.Quote from: blueskull on January 30, 2016, 09:45:35 pmFrom their perspective, the ubiquitous support for USB means they have to find new business somewhere, hence eg. theirdisplay controller ICs. For customers, I suppose if you've been using their products for USB connectivity they might be worth a look, especially if the software support is good.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 10:43:06 am
content: I found the FTDI documentation/manuals for their VNC2 chip to be particularly awful (well, closer to non-existent, I guess. ("Just use the library functions that we provide!")) And no "community", either. Sigh.If the FT51x series is using a standard 8051 core, I guess that would be a big help...

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 11:08:48 am
content: Quote from: andersm on January 31, 2016, 12:02:32 amThey're going to have to work very hard to sell that into anything. New skills, new toolchains, new architecture, and from what I could see, no USP.

author: benSTmax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 01:35:34 pm
content: I still cannot understand why trying to come up with an MCU these days. The profits in this area are thinner than ASPs and in order to get some market-share fast, they would need some disruptive product or a similar to existing solution MCUs but with an outstanding support.I cannot see any of these with FT51A nor FT90X. Price is higher than a Cortex M0 w USB, SW and firmware support is not anywhere near their competitors in this market.I wonder why they didn't focused on the things they do best. Like bridging solutions with good driver support.One other idea that comes to my mind is maybe they're trying to create a bigger portfolio expecting to be bought by a larger semi company (see all the acquisitions throughout 2015 till now) at a better price. More dough for the shareholders in the case of an acquisition. Maybe Microchip will buy them out with the "change" they got from their recent Atmel acquisition ...

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 01:42:39 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 31, 2016, 11:08:48 amAt least they're using a GCC toolchain, so your knowledge will transfer. They've also pushed their port upstream, so at least it looks like they're trying to do the right thing. If you really cared, I suppose you could trawl through the binutils sources and figure out the instruction set that way.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 04:58:37 pm
content: Quote from: andersm on January 31, 2016, 01:42:39 pmIt's also Eclipse based... but then so is TI's CCS and NXP's LPCXpresso, and despite using the same IDE and even core, they work quite differently from an end user perspective, they almost might as well be two different IDEs. I'm just shuddering thinking how bleeding edge it's going to be, I wonder if they bought the core in, or it was the result of someone's postgrad project?

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 06:23:22 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 31, 2016, 04:58:37 pmIt's just an IDE, you can use whatever you like. There's even a separate programming tool and a GDB bridge. However, I don't know if these components are open-sourced, or the protocols documented, so development might be Windows-only for now.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 08:58:45 pm
content: Quote from: benSTmax on January 31, 2016, 01:35:34 pmCoz it's a sinking ship. USB<>UART is a temporary solution in the long term.Quote from: benSTmax on January 31, 2016, 01:35:34 pmI would say they have "driver includes malware" reputation now, so Eeeeek

author: up8051
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 10:35:57 am
content: Hello,I'm trying to use FT900 chip from FTDI, I bought a starter kit and debbuger.I use Eclipse based toolchain version 1.2.0.But at this moment:1. Technical documentation of the chip is poor.2. Debbuger is very slow and hangs very often.3. Under debbuger there no acess to peripherial registers, it is unimaginable for me.4. Degugger have some bugs and its rather not useable.4. Only simple examples are avaliable but they do not show the main advantages of the FT900 - streaming5 USB stack (from MCCI) is not avaliable yet.6. No technical forum or commuinityI tried FT900 because of build in HighSpeed USB PHY and I2S port.I'm waitng for new version of toolchain (1.2.1) but I do not expect a big improvement.Overall ratingRegards,up8051

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 11:16:43 am
content: I can't see how anyone in their right mind would risk designing in a part like this from an unknown in the CPU market, unless it offered some massive benefit over exiting products.Who knows what availability will be like? Toolchain quality?If nothing else, the investment in learning a toolchain that is no use for any other potential alternative products is a major cost.I had a brief play with the VNC2 ages ago and it was pretty terrible - poor docs and crashy, cumbersome tools.There are plenty of other parts out there with USB functionality so I really can't see why they've done this