• AVR Freaks

Helpful ReplyHot!WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and MRF

Author
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
2018/06/27 16:08:16 (permalink)
4.33 (3)

WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and MRF

Hi all
I've been developing with the MRF24WN0MA but I've noticed since I started, the product is not recommended for new designs.  It has only been available for a few years!  I understand acquisitions shake things up a bit.
 
My questions are:
  1. Is there a benchmark for actual measured maximum sustained throughput rates for all of these? ie. Are the ATWIN measured WiFi throughputs as fast as the MRF24WN0MA?
  2. It looks like the ATWINC3400 and ATWINC3000 use the same WiFi engine but exchange Bluetooth for Bluetooth Low Energy?
  3. Is the ATWINC1500 the same WiFi engine as the ATWINC3400 and ATWINC3000 just without the Bluetooth side?
  4. Regarding the ATWINC3400 and ATWINC3000, is it true that Bluetooth must be controlled via USART and cannot be controlled via SPI?
  5. Do we know when the MRF24WN0MA will be discontinued?
  6. There is significant cost difference between the MRF line and the ATW line.  Typically, I believe you get what you pay for...  If my assumption is true, what are we losing when switching from the MRF to the ATW line?
  7. Has anyone ported their application from the MRF to the ATW in Harmony?  Was the transition easy?
#1
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/06/28 13:50:30 (permalink)
4.5 (2)
I've communicated with Microchip support and I've gotten some feedback.  I've created the table below and will update it when I get more information.
 
 
post edited by clange - 2018/06/28 13:55:33

Attached Image(s)

#2
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/07/09 11:00:13 (permalink)
0
I've gotten some updated information from Microchip.  Still working to get a little more info regarding the throughput bench-testing...
 
 

Attached Image(s)

#3
malaugh
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 395
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2011/03/31 14:04:42
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/07/09 15:54:04 (permalink)
0
I have been using these chips for a while.  Here is the rundown
 
ATSAMW25 - One chip solution with built in stack an on board CPU for your application
ATWILC1000 - No on-board TCP-IP
ATWILC3000 - No on-board TCP-IP, has bluetooth
ATWINC1500 - On board Stack
ATWINC3400 - On board Stack, has bluetooth
 
 
I currently use the WINC1500, it is much faster than the MRF B/G chip we replaced.  This is probably you best choice.  I think the ATWILC parts are only a choice if you are using an Atmel CPU.  The ATSAMW25 would be a good choice for a one chip solution.  The WINC3400 is an option if you need bluetooth, but be aware that the Bluetooth stack must be on the CPU, and currently there is only a library for Atmel CPUs.
 
#4
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/07/18 11:29:32 (permalink)
3 (1)
I've been waiting for Microchip to respond with their own benchmarks on these modules.  In the meantime, I've performed an iperf test on the three base modules.  Each with the PIC32MZ2048EFH144 at about 28ft LOS to the router over WPS2.  All tests use O1 optimization.
 
Unfortunately, the new Atmel based modules are slower than the MRF24WN0MA.  However, the difference in price helps me overlook the performance drop.
 
Similar to malaugh's post above, I've noticed the ATWINC1500 looks to be Microchip's unofficially designated replacement to the MRF24W line.  I say this because they've included the ATWINC1500 in the wifi_easy_config demo as the other configuration option to the MRF24WN0MA.  
 
The ATWILC1000 has its own demo app but nothing as comprehensive as the wifi_easy_config demo.  
 
The price difference between the ATWINC1500 and the ATWILC1000 is negligible (for most applications).  Additionally, the ATWINC1500 does everything the ATWILC1000 does and more.  To top it off, the ATWINC1500 can be run from ATWILC1000 drivers and has the same pinout.  This makes me think the ATWILC1000 might be dropped from the lineup (just my own observations - no word from Microchip).
 
 

Attached Image(s)

#5
malaugh
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 395
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2011/03/31 14:04:42
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/07/18 13:19:44 (permalink)
3 (1)
clange
Unfortunately, the new Atmel based modules are slower than the MRF24WN0MA.  However, the difference in price helps me overlook the performance drop.
 



With the stack on the CPU, the performance will depend on the CPU hardware and firmware.  The benchmark uses an MZ process, I am assuming at max frequency and only performing the iPerf task.  In a real world application with a MRF24WN0MA, where the CPU is multi-tasking the stack and the application code, and using a lesser CPU the performance will most likely drop off dramatically compared the ATWINC1500.
#6
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/07/18 15:01:02 (permalink)
0
malaughWith the stack on the CPU, the performance will depend on the CPU hardware and firmware.

 
True.  However, I was trying to test the difference in the modules irrespective of the micro.  My application uses the PIC32MZ and requires performance.  Therefore, all these iperf tests use the stack on the micro - they bypass the stack on the ATWINC1500 altogether.  (This is how Microchip implements the ATWINC1500 based demo anyway).
#7
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/07/19 15:28:13 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Luca Pascarella 2018/08/06 03:03:00
4 (2)
Today I tested the WINC1500's on-board stack.  To my surprise it performed the best of all.  I could get about 3.47Mbps streaming.
 
 

Attached Image(s)

#8
mariusad
New Member
  • Total Posts : 2
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2018/08/21 04:16:24
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/08/22 00:40:20 (permalink)
0
How did you manage to get 3.47 Mbits/s with the onboard TCP/IP stack on the ATWINC1500? In your table you have written under test config: "modified wifi_winc1500_socket to stream TCP data Buffer: TX=4000 bytes -O1", what is necessary to chang ein the driver to get this TX buffer?
 
Im only getting ~0.6Mbits/s using the WINC1500, sending ~1000 bytes buffer with each send(); function with the WINC1500 driver.
#9
clange
Junior Member
  • Total Posts : 52
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2012/05/16 14:25:43
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/08/24 21:29:41 (permalink)
5 (1)
Here are the files I changed.  Just do a diff on Harmony 2.06 wifi_winc1500 (pic32mz_ef_sk_ioexp_winc_freertos config) project.

 
 
post edited by clange - 2018/08/24 21:39:05

Attached Image(s)

#10
mariusad
New Member
  • Total Posts : 2
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2018/08/21 04:16:24
  • Location: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: WiFi Module Comparison: ATSAMW25, ATWILC1000, ATWILC3000, ATWINC1500, ATWINC3400, and 2018/08/27 02:19:01 (permalink)
5 (1)
Thanks for the files.
 
Figured out why I couldnt get higher speeds with my code; I had the WINC1500 configured as an access point. Changed the code so it connects to my home network instead, and the transfer speed went up to ~2.9-3 Mbits/s.
#11
Jump to:
© 2019 APG vNext Commercial Version 4.5