Searching \ for '[PIC]: PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=18F
Search entire site for: 'PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences '
2005\05\16@101320 by Electron

flavicon
face

I think the subject says it all.. anyway:

Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?
I need the PIC to be perfectly in sync with some peripherals
which must run at an integer fraction of the mentioned MHz.

Is there an ~official test somewhere to test the core for
reliability? (e.g. there are lotsa x86 utilities of this kind)

What is the best voltage to achieve most stable overclocking?
My guess is 5.5V but maybe I'm applying too much x86 physics
here.

Thanks,
Electron

2005\05\16@103916 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Electron (!) wrote :

> Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
> 40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?

Note that some (most/many ?) dsPIC's runs at
up to 120 Mhz (30 mips).

Might be better then to run a PIC18 outside specs...

Jan-Erik.



2005\05\16@104209 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 16:12 +0100, Electron wrote:
> I think the subject says it all.. anyway:
>
> Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
> 40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?
> I need the PIC to be perfectly in sync with some peripherals
> which must run at an integer fraction of the mentioned MHz.

Save yourself a LARGE amount of headaches and switch to the dsPIC line,
which can run at those speeds without going out of spec. TTYL

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

2005\05\16@105326 by Shawn Tan Ser Ngiap

flavicon
face
On Monday 16 May 2005 04:12 pm, Electron wrote:
> I think the subject says it all.. anyway:
>
> Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
> 40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?

I don't have experience at overclocking PICs, but maybe you might be better
served with an alternative stable solution??

First, a 40MHz PIC only runs at 10MIPS, which isn't too fast.. So, maybe use
an external data buffer between the two devices might help?? Or using a
custom FPGA in place of a PIC?? It all depends on how you're interfacing with
this 44.5MHz device..

cheers..

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

2005\05\16@114556 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 15.53 2005.05.16 +0100, you wrote:
>On Monday 16 May 2005 04:12 pm, Electron wrote:
>> I think the subject says it all.. anyway:
>>
>> Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
>> 40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?
>
>I don't have experience at overclocking PICs, but maybe you might be better
>served with an alternative stable solution??
>
>First, a 40MHz PIC only runs at 10MIPS, which isn't too fast.. So, maybe use
>an external data buffer between the two devices might help?? Or using a
>custom FPGA in place of a PIC?? It all depends on how you're interfacing with
>this 44.5MHz device..

No, the problem is economy: there are millions elegant
solutions to a problem, but when you want the best bang
for the buck, there's at most one solution..

IMHO engineering is not about nice but expensive chips
(e.g. Maxim): it is getting the best from the least.

Thanks anyway.


2005\05\16@121011 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 04:12 PM 5/16/2005 +0100, you wrote:

>I think the subject says it all.. anyway:
>
>Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
>40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?
>I need the PIC to be perfectly in sync with some peripherals
>which must run at an integer fraction of the mentioned MHz.
>
>Is there an ~official test somewhere to test the core for
>reliability? (e.g. there are lotsa x86 utilities of this kind)
>
>What is the best voltage to achieve most stable overclocking?
>My guess is 5.5V but maybe I'm applying too much x86 physics
>here.

Yes, I think that's correct. It might be reasonable to infer
probable correct operation at 10% higher frequency with 5.5V
supply, especially over a limited temperature range. Whether you'd want
to put it into a product is another matter, and it's doubtful that
you can find a way to thoroughly test this at a reasonable cost. You could
do a half-ass check by seeing where your application visibly fails at 4.5V
and then at 5.5V to see what VISIBLE improvement in margin there has been,
but there's no guarantee that there isn't some unforseen process going on
that will cause you grief.

You should also consider using the USB 18F PICs which are
guaranteed to operate at 48MHz and are not particularly expensive.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com




2005\05\16@121525 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
> 40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?
> I need the PIC to be perfectly in sync with some peripherals
> which must run at an integer fraction of the mentioned MHz.
>
> Is there an ~official test somewhere to test the core for
> reliability? (e.g. there are lotsa x86 utilities of this kind)
>
> What is the best voltage to achieve most stable overclocking?
> My guess is 5.5V but maybe I'm applying too much x86 physics
> here.

You'll have to write your own tests, I'm afraid.

Connectix made thousands of Quickcams with 20MHz PICs overclocked to
24MHz, so don't let anyone tell you it is something serious people would
never do.

You might want to test PLL oscillator, eeprom read and write, and A/D
first, those would be the things I would guess to be the biggest problem.

Test at different temperatures, compare startup times, etc.

Then make a web page with your results!

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2005\05\16@124043 by Shawn Tan Ser Ngiap

flavicon
face
On Monday 16 May 2005 05:44 pm, Electron wrote:
> >First, a 40MHz PIC only runs at 10MIPS, which isn't too fast.. So, maybe
> > use an external data buffer between the two devices might help?? Or using
> > a custom FPGA in place of a PIC?? It all depends on how you're
> > interfacing with this 44.5MHz device..
>
> No, the problem is economy: there are millions elegant
> solutions to a problem, but when you want the best bang
> for the buck, there's at most one solution..
>
> IMHO engineering is not about nice but expensive chips
> (e.g. Maxim): it is getting the best from the least.

Hehe... I agree, but engineering is also about getting something to work,
within spec... but something always seems to crop up out of no where... then,
the cost to fix the problem, may end up more than the alternative solution...
but you know your application/client best...

cheers...

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

2005\05\16@124234 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>Then make a web page with your results!

And hope nothing changes on the next date code, die shrink, or
different fab facility, or that the oscillator duty cycle isn't a bit
more asymmetrical than the last bunch, due to crystal changes, cap
value, pcb layout, or the processor itself..


I have heard of companies getting selected parts, and "waivers" form
the chip vendors to exceed specs like this.
Rare, but it happens. When you get one, you are assured that you can
safely do exactly what they issued the waiver on.
I have one on Sanyo NIMH batteries, to charge 10C hotter than the
spec indicates, in one application.
They needed to know a lot about the system before approving it though.


I've also seen people push a part outside it's design limits without
factory guidance, with varying levels of success.
Far more on the negative side though.


We all know that there's a little bit of extra margin in the clock
speeds, on any device.
But, the manufacturer is guaranteeing that the device will meet all
it's specs, all the time, if you operate within the limits.
Once you cross the line, you're on your own, and the failures may or
may not be obvious.

It comes down to risk management, what's your downside risk, and
what's the benefit if it works?

I would look hard for other solutions first.
Depending on the task, an AVR or other processor might do better than
a pic, even through their clock speeds are not all that impressive at
first glance.


2005\05\16@124805 by Marcel van Lieshout

flavicon
face
Afaik the new USB pic18F's are guaranteed up to 48MHz.

Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2005\05\16@145719 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> >First, a 40MHz PIC only runs at 10MIPS, which isn't too
> fast.. So, maybe use
> >an external data buffer between the two devices might help??
> Or using a
> >custom FPGA in place of a PIC?? It all depends on how you're
> interfacing with
> >this 44.5MHz device..
>
> No, the problem is economy: there are millions elegant
> solutions to a problem, but when you want the best bang
> for the buck, there's at most one solution..

Just be carefull to calculate your bang and buck appropriately. For
instance: don't forget
- engineering cost
- all costs of product failures (replacement, customer goodwill lost)

In this case I would say: Why not select something (dsPIC, ARM, ...)
than is guaranteed to run at 44.5 MHz?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\05\17@032056 by Electron

flavicon
face

By the way, do you think that a LF part could perform better in this regard than a F part?



2005\05\17@032103 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 20.56 2005.05.16 +0200, you wrote:
>> >First, a 40MHz PIC only runs at 10MIPS, which isn't too
>> fast.. So, maybe use
>> >an external data buffer between the two devices might help??
>> Or using a
>> >custom FPGA in place of a PIC?? It all depends on how you're
>> interfacing with
>> >this 44.5MHz device..
>>
>> No, the problem is economy: there are millions elegant
>> solutions to a problem, but when you want the best bang
>> for the buck, there's at most one solution..
>
>Just be carefull to calculate your bang and buck appropriately. For
>instance: don't forget
>- engineering cost
>- all costs of product failures (replacement, customer goodwill lost)
>
>In this case I would say: Why not select something (dsPIC, ARM, ...)
>than is guaranteed to run at 44.5 MHz?

Yes, but I already have these hundreds 40MHz parts and hundreds
11.059200 MHz XTALs. ;P Also, the application has a RS232 interface,
so I like this XTAL frequency a lot (it is 115200*96..).

I have also hundreds dsPICs and I would use them, the /3 prescaler
on their PLL is a wonderful thing.. I could get 29.4912 MHz core
speed (i.e. very near to the specced 30MHz) if the PLL could do x32
instead of being limited to a max x16. I guess I'm not too lucky..
The datasheet already left no hope, anyway: is there a way to make
run the dsPIC core at more than Fosc/4?

Of course I could use an external PLL, but that would probably cost
more than the MPU itself.. so what's the point? as I said above "the
problem is economy: there are millions elegant solutions to a problem,
but when you want the best bang for the buck, there's at most one
solution..".


>Wouter van Ooijen


2005\05\17@045051 by Chen Xiao Fan

face
flavicon
face
Should be worse, right? LF parts are meant for low power
and thus low speed usage.

-----Original Message-----
From: Electron [.....electron2k4KILLspamspam@spam@infinito.it]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:58 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [PIC]: PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences to share?

By the way, do you think that a LF part could perform
better in this regard than a F part?

2005\05\17@064014 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 16.50 2005.05.17 +0800, you wrote:
>Should be worse, right? LF parts are meant for low power
>and thus low speed usage.

They are simply guaranteed to run ALSO at a lower voltage.


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Electron [electron2k4spamKILLspaminfinito.it]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:58 PM
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [PIC]: PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences to share?
>
>By the way, do you think that a LF part could perform
>better in this regard than a F part?
>
>-

2005\05\17@065914 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>>Should be worse, right? LF parts are meant for low power
>>and thus low speed usage.
>
>They are simply guaranteed to run ALSO at a lower voltage.

But LF does not stand for "Larger Frequency"

2005\05\17@085334 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:59 AM 5/17/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >>Should be worse, right? LF parts are meant for low power
> >>and thus low speed usage.
> >
> >They are simply guaranteed to run ALSO at a lower voltage.
>
>But LF does not stand for "Larger Frequency"

At least the curve gives you something to extrapolate, as it has more
than one point. ;-)

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
.....speffKILLspamspam.....interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
>>>Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff



2005\05\17@092727 by Jinx

face picon face
> > Does anybody have experiences to share about overclocking
> > 40MHz-rated PIC18F parts to about 44.5MHz?

Some time last year I posted about an 18F452 that I accidentally
connected an 18.432MHz xtal to and then turned the PLL on. It
did appear to run OK with some very simple timing tests at
73.728MHz but I would never expect to try that in production
nd without a complete battery of tests on all the modules it's
impossible to say whether it was a fully functional device at that
speed

Although you've been advised that 44.5MHz is out of spec, that
doesn't necessarily mean it won't work reliably. Just that if it
doesn't you've no one to blame but yourself. I don't know what
Microchip's actual criteria are for specifications at the higher
frequencies, but at the bottom end you probably can overclock
parts. For example, a -04 part is guaranteed to run at 4MHz,
but came from the same batch as -10 parts, and failed the 10MHz
test. So it could run alright at 6MHz or 8MHz

It might very well be the case that some 40MHz parts will run
at 44.5MHz. You would have to sort out which ones will, and
with the functions you're using


2005\05\17@111215 by Mark Scoville

flavicon
face
Hmmm... I have a prototype 18F6585 based device on my desk. Just for grins I
tried changing the 10MHz xtal to 16MHz (Bumps clock from 40MHz to 64MHz) -
it didn't work for me :-(  If I can find an 11MHz xtal lying around I'll try
it at 44MHz.

-- Mark

> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\17@113118 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 11.59 2005.05.17 +0100, you wrote:
>>>Should be worse, right? LF parts are meant for low power
>>>and thus low speed usage.
>>
>>They are simply guaranteed to run ALSO at a lower voltage.
>
>But LF does not stand for "Larger Frequency"

the way I read it:

L = Low voltage
F = Flash


2005\05\17@113127 by Electron

flavicon
face

At what voltage were you running it? :)


At 11.09 2005.05.17 -0400, you wrote:
>Hmmm... I have a prototype 18F6585 based device on my desk. Just for grins I
>tried changing the 10MHz xtal to 16MHz (Bumps clock from 40MHz to 64MHz) -
>it didn't work for me :-(  If I can find an 11MHz xtal lying around I'll try
>it at 44MHz.
>
>-- Mark
>
>> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\17@142529 by Mark Scoville

flavicon
face
My 64MHz test failed at 5.00V

I tried at 3.70V and it looks like it IS running. It seems to be running a
little faster. It really is running a little faster - I checked my SPI clock
line with a scope... however... It does not appear to be running at 64MHz.
Maybe 41.8MHz... I'm not sure how reliable it is - but it is running. On
this particular chip it looks like maybe the PLL can't phase lock much above
40MHz? The OSCCON lock bit indicates that the PLL is locked - but it doesn't
look like it to me.

Interesting stuff... but I would never try this in production.

-- Mark

> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\17@144512 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face
I've noticed that the smaller 18F parts are rated at 40 MHz, but the
larger ones are not. My guess is that the larger ones have more
peripherals hanging on the internal bus, making it hard to move the bus
that fast.  Does my guess sound reasonable? When I first started with one
of the big 18F chips, the datasheet said 40 MHz. My prototype worked, but
production didn't. A piclist member pointed out an erratta dropping the
clock speed to something like 25MHz.

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com

2005\05\17@144856 by Jake Brownson

picon face
My advice would be, "if it ain't broke make it run faster until it breaks"

On 5/17/05, Mark Scoville <EraseMEmscovillespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTunicontrolinc.com> wrote:
>
> My 64MHz test failed at 5.00V
>
> I tried at 3.70V and it looks like it IS running. It seems to be running a
> little faster. It really is running a little faster - I checked my SPI
> clock
> line with a scope... however... It does not appear to be running at 64MHz.
> Maybe 41.8MHz... I'm not sure how reliable it is - but it is running. On
> this particular chip it looks like maybe the PLL can't phase lock much
> above
> 40MHz? The OSCCON lock bit indicates that the PLL is locked - but it
> doesn't
> look like it to me.
>
> Interesting stuff... but I would never try this in production.
>
> -- Mark
>
> > {Original Message removed}

2005\05\17@153952 by Dave Turner

picon face
And then run it a tiny bit slower than that....

On 5/17/05, Jake Brownson <jbrownsonspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> > > {Original Message removed}

2005\05\17@174407 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Note: Nothing in this email is to be construed as a recommendation on the
part of the author to operate any integrated circuit outside its
vendor-specified parameters ;-)

Very, very early in the PIC18 days I built up a project using a PIC18C252
that was very timing dependent. I was rather irritated that all my timing
seemed to be off by about 10% (fast). After a lot of head scratching,
probing and puzzling I finally noticed that the 10MHz crystal sold to me by
Digikey was really something like 11.09MHz (it said so on the crystal, but
the bag it came in said 10MHz). Except for the timing issues, the chip did
seem to work perfectly, at least at room temperature with a 5V nominal power
supply.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


----- Original Message -----
From: "Electron" <KILLspamelectron2k4KILLspamspaminfinito.it>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: [PIC]: PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences to share?


{Quote hidden}

>>> {Original Message removed}

2005\05\18@030013 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 14.33 2005.05.17 -0400, you wrote:
>Note: Nothing in this email is to be construed as a recommendation on the part of the author to operate any integrated circuit outside its vendor-specified parameters ;-)

I promise, I'll behave. O;^)


>Very, very early in the PIC18 days I built up a project using a PIC18C252 that was very timing dependent. I was rather irritated that all my timing seemed to be off by about 10% (fast). After a lot of head scratching, probing and puzzling I finally noticed that the 10MHz crystal sold to me by Digikey was really something like 11.09MHz (it said so on the crystal, but the bag it came in said 10MHz). Except for the timing issues, the chip did seem to work perfectly, at least at room temperature with a 5V nominal power supply.

Thanks :)

You know, the best discovers in history have been made by mistake. ;)



>Bob Ammerman
>RAm Systems



2005\05\18@030014 by Electron

flavicon
face
At 11.45 2005.05.17 -0700, you wrote:
>I've noticed that the smaller 18F parts are rated at 40 MHz, but the
>larger ones are not. My guess is that the larger ones have more
>peripherals hanging on the internal bus, making it hard to move the bus
>that fast.

I think you are right but ONLY about quantity of Flash memory. Not about
peripherals. Look, for example, at 18F8520 vs 18F8720. 40 MHz vs 25 MHz,
all the rest is 100% the same.


>Does my guess sound reasonable? When I first started with one
>of the big 18F chips, the datasheet said 40 MHz. My prototype worked, but
>production didn't. A piclist member pointed out an erratta dropping the
>clock speed to something like 25MHz.

The errata of the 18F8x20 says 4MHz, but that's another story. =:-0


>
>Harold



2005\05\18@041500 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu]
>Sent: 17 May 2005 19:45
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [PIC]: PIC18F at 44.5MHz. Anybody has experiences
>to share?
>
>
>I've noticed that the smaller 18F parts are rated at 40 MHz,
>but the larger ones are not. My guess is that the larger ones
>have more peripherals hanging on the internal bus, making it
>hard to move the bus that fast.  Does my guess sound
>reasonable? When I first started with one of the big 18F
>chips, the datasheet said 40 MHz. My prototype worked, but
>production didn't. A piclist member pointed out an erratta
>dropping the clock speed to something like 25MHz.

The problem was in the larger memory parts.  Apparently the larger
arrays were prone to reflections/ringing on the busses causing data
corruption.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...