kriswiner
commented
3 years ago Not sure what all of this means, but the STM32L4 (or F4) has a single-precision floating point unit that the Teensy 3.1/2 does not have, so it should provide better performance in terms of fusion rate for the same clock speed.
If you want accurate, low-power absolute orientation estimation you can use this https://www.tindie.com/products/tleracorp/ladybug-stm32l432-development-board/ inexpensive, Arduino-programmable STM32L4 dev board and your favorite motion sensor suite, or use this https://www.tindie.com/products/onehorse/usfsmax-module-and-carrier/ for the best-in-class solution.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:38 AM JPB1JPB1 @.***> wrote:
Dear Kris
Please, reading your information, about clock speed .... ok for this in consumption.. Ok...
But i miss something where Teensy 3.1 might be twice the STM32F401 : 24MHZ is not 16MHZ .. and after you say the stm32 is running in 42 Mhz ... it might not run at 16Mhz (unfortunately may be and not yet ..)
So if teensy 3.1 is running at 24Mhz and Stm32F401 at 42Mhz (minimum real ?), why Teensy3.1 is twice more than STM32 ?
Of course STM32 is looking better at first as you reach " 5500 Hz update rate on a 3.3 V 84 MHz STM32F401 and 3200 Hz update rate on a 3.3 V 96 MHz Teensy 3.1 " It looks already twice better for STM32F : 5500/3200 = 1.7 .... at maximun speed ( and may be "closed to maximum core power" not exactly....)
But if STM32F can not slow down to 16Mhz and stay at 42 Mhz ....
Why Teensy 3.1 (24Mhz) is always twice worst than STM32F(42Mhz minimum for now, 16Mhz expected) ?
Based on update rate at full speed, what are CPU specs for Teensy 3.1 and STM32F401 ? May be you could really measure it on both card ?
Why not also using DragonFly on STM32L401 also to reduce power consumption ?
..... If stm32 can NOT be so slow down, why is better ? If Teensy 3.1 can slow down ....
Keep going on your projects... Best regards J
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kriswiner/MPU6050/issues/52, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTDLKUG7BTO4DVFS2YBMN3UFRNNBANCNFSM5FOYZ67A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
Dear Kris
Please, reading your information, about clock speed .... ok for this in consumption.. Ok...
But i miss something where Teensy 3.1 might be twice the STM32F401 : 24MHZ is not 16MHZ .. and after you say the stm32 is running in 42 Mhz ... it might not run at 16Mhz (unfortunately may be and not yet ..)
So if teensy 3.1 is running at 24Mhz and Stm32F401 at 42Mhz (minimum real ?), why Teensy3.1 is twice more than STM32 ?
Of course STM32 is looking better at first as you reach " 5500 Hz update rate on a 3.3 V 84 MHz STM32F401 and 3200 Hz update rate on a 3.3 V 96 MHz Teensy 3.1 " It looks already twice better for STM32F : 5500/3200 = 1.7 .... at maximun speed ( and may be "closed to maximum core power" not exactly....)
But if STM32F can not slow down to 16Mhz and stay at 42 Mhz ....
Why Teensy 3.1 (24Mhz) is always twice worst than STM32F(42Mhz minimum for now, 16Mhz expected) ?
Based on update rate at full speed, what are CPU specs for Teensy 3.1 and STM32F401 ? May be you could really measure it on both card ?
Why not also using DragonFly on STM32L401 also to reduce power consumption ?
..... If stm32 can NOT be so slow down, why is better ? If Teensy 3.1 can slow down ....
Keep going on your projects... Best regards J