After receiving some feedback, the development board will have Ethernet using the ENC28 chip. Using the internal MAC is an option for the future but not supported today.
The updated development boards are in production new. Thanks for the feedback.
1 Like
Did not klnow that there was a request for comment on this 
Consider these questions
-Is a PHY greatly cheaper than ENC28 ?
-Is the PHY going to increase performance by magnitudes ?
-Will using a PHY give us more pheripheral pins ?
-Does it matter to the user application as long as the built in NETMF is available ?
-Is the PHY more power efficient that the ENC28 ?
If there are more “Yes” as answers then a PHY is required.
On a side note does GHI provide a MAC ID for the G80 ? what about the ENC28 module ?
Great questions.
Not at all. The cost is very similar.
While ENC28 is base 10 and using a PHY will be base100, the speed increase will not be 10 times! The bottleneck is in the micro and NETMF trying to process all the data. While it will be faster, it will not be fast enough to cover all the negatives mentioned below.
The other way around. Using a PHY requires about 17 pins, causing the loss of 12 analog and 8 PWM pins, and a SPI, CAN, and COM port. Using ENC28, you will only lose 2 IO pins and SPI can be shared with other slaves.
The code will be using .NET Sockets in both cases. The exact same code will work.
Both should draw about the same power.
We only provided it on SoMs with a built in PHY; however, if you have a commercial need and require some then we will happily accommodate your needs.
I agree with @ Bec a Fuel, having a VI version would allow you replace currently used STM32F405VG with STM32427VI. It is better in every way except flash size (which is smaller) and RLP support (which we hope will be enabled at some point in time). You could effectively do the same thing you did with EMX.
[quote=“Josh”][quote=“ianlee74”]However, I think something is wrong with the website… When I view the specs for the dev board, I see this. When I mouse over the problem areas then stuff jumps around and it changes. 
[/quote]
Josh already knows and it’s been fixed ;D
[/quote]
It looks like it is still not fixed.
1 Like
Agreed. Maybe it just hasn’t been pushed out to production?
It should be good now.
I see “No” under the In-Field Update. Will the G80 ever get IFU?
@ mmmtang - to be visited I the near future but no promises are made.
I’m looking to replace a USBizi chip with a G80 in one of my products. I’d really like to retain the in-field update. I asked a year ago, so I wanted to check again. Is the IFU on the G80 not possible, or is it just not implemented?
@ mmmtang - G120 is what you need today but we are discussing ways to add to G80. No plans yet.
@ Gary - sounds so fabulous 