> The real bottleneck seems to be writing and reading from the PIC, not
> transferring the data between the host and the programmer.

Depends on the PIC you use. The oldest FLASH chips (16F84A, 16F628,
16F877, etc) used IIRC a 10 ms/word time. The latest chips use 1 ms to
write a block (IIRC 8 or 16 words?) to *each memory bank* (can be up to
8 or 16?).

> My USB programmer is currently significantly slower during 
> readback when
> using the USB.  That's because the protocol was designed for 
> RS-232 where
> there is no latency to send back data.

another think to make life diffocult for benchmarkers :)

>       PIC   Sec full   Sec empty
>   -------   --------   ---------
>    16F876       51.8        15.6
>    18F252       23.1        14.9
>   18F2520       16.4        10.0
>   30F4012       46.5        33.1
>   30F3013       25.4        17.8
> 
> These times include doing a bulk erase, programming, and a 
> readback pass at
> each of the Vdd limits for that chip.

Olin, for the 'empty' case, do you read back all program memory? IIRC my
proggers read only the addresses that where present in the .hex file.

> Actually my programmers have built in algorithms for reading 
> and writing to all the supported PICs. 
> The low level pin wiggling commands are only used
> for very simple things that take a small fraction of the time 
> no matter how you do them. This mostly means performing the bulk
erase.  

I must have confused you proggers with some other product.

Wouter van Ooijen

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

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist