Broadcom Crams 802.11n, Bluetooth, and FM Onto a Single Chip

Broadcom has managed to cram 802.11n, Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, and FM reception/transmission all into a single "combo wireless chip." Designed to be a better wireless implementation for portable devices, the chip seeks to lower chip counts and integration costs. "Broadcom is the second firm — following Atheros in a single-function chip — to announce a single-stream 802.11n product, in which one of 802.11n's advantages is shaved off in favor of a faster baseline performance and lower battery consumption. This move is meant to replace 802.11g in portable devices without draining a battery faster and providing other advantages that make up for what's become a slight cost difference."

Comments

The real winner is the retailers

[utahraptor]

They can sell the same hardware in 3 versions charging more for each one depending which features are enabled.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

So you buy the cheapest one and enable it.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[pm_rat_poison]

Assuming you can jailbreak it in time

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck soldering the pins they removed and coding the drivers they didn't include.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

or fixing the internal fuses they set

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[noidentity]

They can sell the same hardware in 3 versions [802.11n, Bluetooth, and FM] charging more for each one depending which features are enabled.

So that's why my portable FM radio has two detachable antennas, four ethernet ports that don't seem to do anything, and flashable firmware!

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. Charging more compared to what?

So if they produce 3 devices with different functionality they make more money if these devices use the same chip, rather than different ones. Why?

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[fishbowl]

QA and project management costs are aggregated into a single product, so it's presumably less expensive in terms of manufacturing overhead.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[nog_lorp]

You mean 9 versions.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

I thank you for your reply. It clearly shows that the OP didn't put half a thought into his post. At least you come up with something one can think about.

I had the same thought as you too. But I can't think of a way that would work.
How would you safe money in QA or project management? You still have to develop your product WiFi, Bluetooth and FM. You still have to test it for each one. You still use different interfaces for each one. From the usage point of view it does not really matter whether this is on one chip or on three different ones.
If you can develop a product where you can insert the same chip with three different configurations I don't see how it would be more expensive to develop the same to work with three different chips in this case. You would have a point if those functionalities would be somehow similar, but IMO they are not. I don't see how you could just replace Bluetooth with WiFi and much less with FM.

Really, the only benefits of that chip probably are space, energy consumption and in some cases failure rate.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Walpurgiss]

It's little different than what nVidia and ATI have done to their reference boards in the past. Different numbers of pipelines and clocks just disabled in firmware.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you meant '9 versions' to account for the different combinations of the 3 features, you have to review your math. Since same feature combinations won't be possible (at least without redesigning the chip ) and the order of the features is irrelevant (i.e. Bluetooth-FM-802.11n chip == 802.11n-FM-Bluetooth chip). Correct me if I'm wrong but that leave us with only 7 possible combinations.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[p0tat03]

To their credit it wasn't *that* evil. Pipelines and clocks were turned off/down based on manufacturing defects, so it's not as if they placed some arbitrary restriction on your hardware for no good reason, although most would run quite well at boosted specs.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[froon]

You forgot: 8) Broadcom Zen: Perfection in minimalism.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that leave us with only 7 possible combinations

Obviously you've never heard of marketing! :-)

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[theaveng]

How come none of these chips ever come with an AM receiver? FM is just filled with a bunch of teeny-bopper music, but AM has all the cool talk shows like "Rush Windbaugh" and "The Corn Outlook". ;-)

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Crudely_Indecent]

I'm right there with you. Who says time-shifting radio programs is for the FM stations only!

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[clampolo]

You are only looking at things in terms of engineering costs. The manufacturing costs is where the savings come in.

There are a lot of significant costs with making different boards. For example, you often have to reconfigure the reels with different parts (while this is happening your line is down for a good 15 - 30 minutes.) You also have to worry about stocking more parts. You are buying several different parts instead of one part at a larger quantity so you get less of a price discount. You have to maintain the databases and Bill of materials for each of the boards. Basically, it is a giant PITA and it is more expensive. You are better off paying a little extra for an all-in-one chip than dealing with all those issues.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Firethorn]

How come none of these chips ever come with an AM receiver?

Technology and physics - while it's simpler to process AM signals over FM you need a larger unit and antenna.

So while you can do a FM radio on the cheap AM takes a bit more space or effort, so they don't normally bother with the smallest equipment.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[pm_rat_poison]

Smaller frequencies require larger antennae. The smallest possible "largest dimension" of an AM antenna is much to small to fit in an integrated circuit

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[pm_rat_poison]

correction to my above post: Smaller frequencies require larger antennae. The smallest possible "largest dimension" of an AM antenna is much to small to BIG in an integrated circuit

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[theaveng]

hahahahaha! You still didn't get it right. Maybe you should make a third attempt? ;-)

Is this what you meant? "Smaller frequencies require larger antennae. The smallest possible "largest dimension" of an AM antenna is much to[o] [BIG] to fit in an integrated circuit."

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[bluefoxlucid]

You need the FM transceiver to actually broadcast/receive the FM signals used to carry 802.11 and Bluetooth data...

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[pm_rat_poison]

Yeah, after the second attempt, I gave up trying. Maybe I should flag myself as Informative Inarticulate idiot

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[denton420]

The orientation of an antenna that receives vertically polarized waves (AM waves) would be hard, to fit onto an integrated circuit. Chips such as these are usually more limited in height than they are in width when put into a laptop or most other portable devices.

The other waves are not affected by antenna orientation since they are elliptically polarized.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Megane]

One big reason is interference. With my house full of nerd gear and Ethernet wiring, using a real tuner amp gives very noisy AM reception. Even using USB extension cables to put it along an outside wall as far away from electronic devices as possible, I still get the same trouble with a Griffin RadioShark. I also get bad interference on AM radio as I drive my car into my garage.

RFI is nothing new. When I was a kid, I had to turn off my TRS-80 whenever the family wanted to watch channel 12 on the TV.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[Crudely_Indecent]

The mini-pci atheros radios I use don't have integrated antenna, neither does the CF FM radio I've got. I'm perfectly happy with my own antenna, I just want an AM radio chip!

Slashdot Advertising

[sciop101]

Slashdot is now advertising media.

Re:Slashdot Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. It's called a Slashvertisement.

Re:Slashdot Advertising

[Whiteox]

Damnit! Slashvertisements escape Adblock.

Broadcom is crap

[rewter]

Broadcom wireless chipsets are crap. And I am speaking out of real embedded system design experience here.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Hordeking]

Broadcom wireless chipsets are crap. And I am speaking out of real embedded system design experience here.

Agreed, but from a different perspective. Their support for users running Linux is atrocious. I absolutely hate purchasing a wireless PCI card from a major maker only to find they've changed chips between revisions, and the new chip doesn't have drivers. Of course, the makers are just as guilty, since they don't mark the packaging in any way.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Klaus_1250]

Which ones aren't? Ralink has that famous will-randomly-disconnect-wpa-connections bug. Broadcom has the issue with not having open drivers. Which leaves Atheros? Marvell? ...

Re:Broadcom is crap

[phantomcircuit]

Intel wireless chipsets work essentially flawlessly and are opensource

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats good to know since my onboard intel gigabit nic doesnt work atleast out of the box :P

Re:Broadcom is crap

[PitaBred]

Get an updated kernel. But I smell a troll... I have yet to find a single wired ethernet card that won't work with Linux. Are there some drivers not built by your distro for the kernel you're using or something?

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Chirs]

Broadcom makes some 1GB and 10GB devices that require closed-source drivers on Linux because they won't give out the specs.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I love Broadcomm network devices; at least on Windows. I admit to not having tried very hard to get their stuff working on Linux. But with my gaming rig their the only NIC makers that I *haven't* run into an issue with.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[fishbowl]

A significant linux deployment project was once abandoned by a client of mine because it was impossible to spec a PCI 802.11/g card.
There's no way to identify a product meaningfully, and no way to make the order repeatable. The few vendors who will guarantee linux support for a device, would only do so at an unacceptable price, and it was clear that they had no better way of guaranteeing it than the consumer did.

I know there have been a few cards that have stable chipsets (e.g., certain 3COM models). This doesn't really help the situation.

The wireless-compatability HOWTO is good for a laugh. There are devices listed that were only available for a short time, only in certain countries, and many devices that, given the same part number, get you several completely different cards.

I lost count of the number of times I was referred to that list when shopping for a vendor that would guarantee delivery and repeatable support of a card that would work.

What really stunk about the whole thing was that wireless internet was fast becoming "the killer app" for computing in many sectors, and Linux missed the boat. You can say it's not "linux's fault" but, why in the hell aren't the people who got rich off Linux, also sitting on the boards of some of these companies? Or at least, competing with them so that it's not possible, business-wise, to be openly hostile to Linux developers? Not "supportive", mind you, just not flatly hostile please. It's as if the directors of Broadcom used their leverage in an active campaign to keep Linux off portable computers.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Lord Jester]

I have had great experience with Atheros.

My, now dead, Acer worked great. Picked up as soon as I installed Kubuntu.

The Wireless chip set is one of the biggest drivers for my laptop selection process. I do not run Windows (except at work and in a virtual machine).

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Lord Jester]

You have a gigabit "wireless" NIC? Must look in to this.

Here I've been hobbling along at 54Mbps. Where did you get your computer? 2054?

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Lumpy]

Agreed.

dear Braodcom...

drop the really stupid FM radio thing. How about making a not-crappy chipset?

There is nothing any crappier than broadcom products.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[DragoonAK]

Bull.

Intel wireless chipsets will work out of the box, yes, but they have issues crashing due to heavy performance and after resuming from sleep/hibernate.

I would not call them flawless.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Alex Zepeda]

No, they don't. One of their older A/B/G chipsets (2915) was atrocious, even under Windows. It could only do WPA/WPA2 at B speeds. You could eventually find a version of their driver that worked for G+WPA, but you'd then expose yourself to all sorts of security problems. I believe that their similar vintage B/G chipset had nearly identical problems with WPA.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

"essentially flawlessly"? Not at all. I had two intel 2100 cards that I had to replace with Aetheros cards because of a well known bug in their firmware which Intel just never felt like fixing.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[tsotha]

You can say it's not "linux's fault" but, why in the hell aren't the people who got rich off Linux, also sitting on the boards of some of these companies

Eh? Who's gotten rich off Linux? From what I can see most of these companies are barely hanging on.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[davolfman]

Arguably it might be Broadcom given all the linux firmware that used to go into the routers that used their chips.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[smoker2]

I installed a recent version of Damn Small Linux on a new Intel Atom board (D945GCLF) and there were no drivers for it. Apparently a later kernel update fixed it. Doesn't mean there WERE drivers when I found the problem. And if it's a live distro it's harder to upgrade (RO media). Yes you can do it, but still.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to ruin that for you. I own several pocket ethernet III adapters. There are no closed or open source linux drivers for them.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[TehDuffman]

Atheros also has great drivers for Linux. They work great for packet sniffing and injecting. A Wifi hackers dream.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[grunaura]

I used to work in the at Intel (in this dept.) and in comparason to Atheros and Broadcom I concur. If you look at power consumption especially, Intel is the winner. There was a chip with 802.11a/b/g/n, Cell phone, and 802.16 (WiMax) produced by our friends at Intel. It didn't work very well at the time and was put on hold. I would give up the FM reciver for 802.16 anyday of the week.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel wireless chipsets work essentially flawlessly and are opensource>/quote>

last I checked, they required a closed-source firmware.

i think only atheros has REAL opensource drivers...

Re:Broadcom is crap

[MikeBabcock]

Intel Intel Intel.

Intel cards use Intel chips and Intel chips are well-supported.

PS, I'm not pro-Intel in general, but Intel does support Linux.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[PitaBred]

He specifically said that it was an Intel gigabit, though.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[PitaBred]

I've found I've foregone LiveCD distros and just use a USB key. They're cheap as hell, and reusable, and when you boot to them, you can still write to them, too.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[samuisan]

No kidding, broadcom are well known as the most total bunch of f***ers going.

If you use their chips in your product don't expect any support and do expect prices to be pushed up hard once you are locked into them.

But having said that its MS who basically fucked up bluetooth support in windows.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[repvik]

Not half as good as Atheros

Re:Broadcom is crap

[szilagyi]

I've been frustrated by this as an ordinary consumer, as I'm sure many of us have. Not that it solves fishbowl's problem, but I've largely given up and gone to outboard dongles ("game adapters"). It's now finally common and cheap for widgets with a radio and an Ethernet port to provide "client mode" wireless bridge functionality. (That wasn't true a few years ago.)

I like it because I don't have to care what radio chip is on the widget. Saves time fighting with broken Windows drivers, too. And with finding something Mac-compatible. Ethernet to the rescue again. And I guess I have the gamers to thank for bringing the prices down into my range.

Of course, adding a separate widget is not ideal and is a dealbreaker for many applications...

Re:Broadcom is crap

[bluefoxlucid]

Dropping FM radio chip... CARRIER LOST

Re:Broadcom is crap

[kitecamguy]

I don't know who to blame - Broadcomm, Dell, or Microsoft, but Broadcomm chipsets (a.k.a. Dell 139x series) still can't do WPA2-Enterprise in Windows Vista. Intel? No problem.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[fuliginous]

Now perhaps. 3-5 years ago I went through pain trying to get one that worked. Research failed twice because though it was the "same" card as was meant to work the chip set had changed to something unsupported (then). This stuffed me twice where I nearly resorted to ndiswrapper.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Neil Hodges]

Yeah, especially when MadWifi-NG doesn't want to work with WPA at all. My experience had been good in one laptop, then turned to crap with another, both with (different) Atheros wireless chips.

With the next one, I opted with the Intel 4000-series chip, and it's worked perfectly fine.

So little room...

[Jonah Bomber]

So many ways to spy on you.

Broadcom?

[some_guy_88]

Awww, that'll never work on linux..

Re:Broadcom?

[Abreu]

Sad but true... NDISwrapper anyone?

Re:Broadcom?

[Culture20]

Sure it will, after some diligent hackers create the drivers and a firmware loader. Assuming, of course, that Broadcom hasn't spent their research dollars purposefully obfuscating the thing.

Re:Broadcom?

[Chirs]

Broadcom is one of the last remaining holdouts that doesn't give out chip specs for their networking devices. Because of this, it's *very* difficult to create decent linux drivers for their chips.

Re:Broadcom?

[Firehed]

Meanwhile, the manufacturers who play nice with Linux are reaping the benefits of the Linux-running hardware tinkerer's credit cards.

This isn't rocket science... the more places your device can work, the bigger your market. Their spec obfuscation is akin to DRM - it only needs to be broken once for it to become globally worthless, yet if you don't use it in the first place then your loudest users will praise you.

What's there for Broadcom to gain by making it harder to write drivers? Surely it's in their best interest to have Linux support, especially given it's massively widespread use in the embedded devices market.

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't they also at one point threatening to sue anyone who reverse-engineered their hardware? I remember for a very long time the AirPort Extreme had no Linux drivers to speak of.

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Broadcom recently released a Linux STA hybrid driver for some of their wireless chipsets. It works very nicely, even if it is a closed-source blob.

I believe this was a result of cooperation between Broadcom, Canonical and Dell.

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant to include this link: http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but you only need 1 Multi-Billion dollar corporation like Microsoft for instance to make your company or you worth millions.
Who cares if it only works on one OS,
  If that OS has the biggest market share and they ask.
How fast can you all get me 40 million of these for starters ?

Re:Broadcom?

[IorDMUX]

What's there for Broadcom to gain by making it harder to write drivers?

Now, I work for a competitor, so take what I say with a grain (or more) of salt.

...That said, Broadcom is one of the most patent/trade-secret paranoid companies I know of. Their shotgun approach to patent lawsuits and insistence on playing their cards as close as possible to their chest is famous in the wireless industry. If they haven't released the specs on their networking devices, it's likely because they are terrified of *something* leaking out.

On another note, (and this is a beef I have with more than just Broadcom) how can they claim to have released an 802.11n device when 802.11n does not yet exist? Yes, a draft version of .11n is out, and the final version *should* be *mostly* compatible with the draft versions... but there will almost certainly be features/protocol in the finalized version of the specification that differ from these different draft versions coming out at the rate of one every few months. It's like buying Vista (or OSX) before the first patches--except here, you can't patch hardware.

Re:Broadcom?

[billcopc]

That's fine because we'll never buy it.

If Broadcom is too stupid to realize the huge market for Linux-based network appliances, then they deserve to fail.

Re:Broadcom?

[i.of.the.storm]

I'm not a wireless expert, but I thought a lot of draft n stuff would be firmware upgradable to the final draft when it comes out. Is that just for certain routers? My laptop has draft n but I've never used it, n routers are too expensive and I'm not sure if DD-WRT supports draft n anyway.

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Software is stolen

It's pretty hard to steal what is free, especially when copying is encouraged.

Re:Broadcom?

[IorDMUX]

From what I understand from the techs with which I've spoken, it's one of those issues where *most* draft n devices *should* be firmware upgradable to be *mostly* compatible with finalized n. The problem is that nobody knows exactly what finalized n will be, so it is impossible to make a device that is absolutely hardware and firmware compatible with finalized n. As a result, there are all sorts of draft n products out there which implement some version (3.0, 3.02, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0) of draft n, but in a way that doesn't guarantee compatibility down the line.

Re:Broadcom?

[fishbowl]

Broadcom couldn't do a worse job even if they devoted ten percent of their marketing budget towards actively opposing Linux.

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

the STA driver causes kernel panics under Ubuntu for me.
Not entirely sure why it does this now, it worked perfectly for the first week after I installed Ubuntu.

Oh well. I have my eye on the other model of this lappy that doesn't have that damned Broadcom chipset.

I often wonder why they don't release the docs necessary for the kernel devs to write drivers for the chipset. I mean, they're a hardware company, so what would they lose having someone do their driver writing for them?

Ah, we can't have that can we? I mean, we might be able to use the hardware we paid for if they did that...

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Bill, nice to see you're staying busy in retirement.

So is Seinfeld really that goofy in real life?

Re:Broadcom?

[0100010001010011]

What's there for Broadcom to gain by making it harder to write drivers?

Admitting that they stole code/firmware from another vendor?

Re:Broadcom?

[ConanG]

How long are people supposed to wait for final 802.11n? If someone bought a draft n laptop 2 1/2 years ago along with a draft n router, they would get at least some of the benefits of n over g for several years. They would probably have a new laptop by now... And finalized n still isn't out!

It's like buying Vista (or OSX) before the first patches - except here, you don't get the first patches for at least 3 years. And it's better than the alternative.

Re:Broadcom?

[RMH101]

let alone the "pre-N" stuff like my Netgear DG834GT, which as far as I can tell is "pre-N" in that it will only talk at those speeds to other Netgear "pre-N" devices, and nothing else.

Re:Broadcom?

[hattig]

Yeah, I'm using that on my HP 2133 + Ubuntu. It appears to work quite well thankfully, even reconnecting successfully after suspend, which is a first for me.

Well, it'll work until some vindictive kernel developer changes the kernel interface to make it incompatible anyway.

Re:Broadcom?

[MikeBabcock]

I'm pretty sure they could actually, they could invest in SCO for example.

Re:Broadcom?

[sgt scrub]

Broadcom is one of the last remaining holdouts

I wonder how many hardware vendors refuse to open up for driver writers under the guise of "people will copy our IP" because they actually copied someones IP to create their hardware. Maybe "Broadcom is one of the last" because they are still using bits of someone elses work.

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

$30 for a draft n dlink router this week at office depot

Freebies?

[FranTaylor]

Does the chip come with a free ticket to Henry Nicholas's lair?

Package Size

[necro81]

Neither the article, nor Broadcom's product page, nor the product brochure pdf mention the package size. Any guesses?

I suppose it is probably a smaller footprint than three discrete radio chips put together. One usually gets better die-level integration than board level, and you can usually eliminate redundant functions that way.

Even if it were larger footprint, the fact that you could address and power just one chip rather than three would be a winning advantage on its own.

Re:Package Size

[jhfry]

Why do debates about technology always get reduced to the size of one's package. What difference does the size of one's package make when it comes to pleasing your intended audience? So your car is faster, your phone is smarter, and your house is bigger... my package is smaller so ha!

(perhaps it's our effort to make everything smaller that has caused the decline in masculinity talked about earlier today)

Re:Package Size

[svnt]

One usually gets better die-level integration than board level

Thanks Captain Obvious. Usually? Please provide a single concrete example of better board-level integration.

the fact that you could address and power just one chip rather than three would be a winning advantage on its own.

Maybe, but most likely it will only save a couple of chip selects. Also, don't you just love it when your WiFi drops out when your FM radio is damaged?

Re:Package Size

[spaceyhackerlady]

Knowing Broadcom, they probably won't even divulge the package size unless you sign an NDA.

The trend nowadays seems to keep all the juicy technical information confidential, and not to even sample the component unless you work for a very important company. This eliminates any hobbyist use of the part. Can't have people experimenting with this stuff. Think of the children!

...laura

Re:Package Size

[IorDMUX]

I'm kind of surprised that crammed the power management unit on there--not because of size, but because of the fact that the chip was done in 65 nm tech. In fact, the reason that most PMU's are not on the same chip as RF circuitry is because of the significantly decreased efficiency of power management in a cutting-edge process. Yes, 65 nm is a good place to put your speedy RF circuits, but it tends to require too many inefficient concessions to host a good PMU.

I wonder about the power efficiency and battery life of a mobile device that runs on this chip. Maybe there are advantages to this approach -- though, given that Broadcom holds the specs, we'll probably never know.

Re:Package Size

[rdnetto]

It's obviously a conspiracy by HP. Everyone knows they have the biggest packages of all, though there isn't actually that much inside...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/hp_packaging/

Re:Package Size

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the package size. It's how you use the package.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Re:Package Size

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that. I hear that they don't even make proper datasheets anymore for some parts. If you are one of their top four customers buying millions of units they will just send you one of the engineers who designed the chip to help you. Anyone else is SOL. Of course you have to divulge the exact details of your product along with your buisness plan "proving" to them you'll be able to buy those milions of units too.

Re:Package Size

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that by using switching supplies, it forces you to put a potential EMI source only a few cm away from your sensitive RF components in the form of the external power inductor. Switchers tend to have undesireable ripple that digital tollerates and analog hates.

Re:Package Size

[Firethorn]

Is 65nm still cutting edge though? Intel's been producing stuff at 45nm for a while now.

From my understanding of the technology, if they need to they can always 'scale up' the PMU section - drawing bigger parts using the finer process isn't difficult. It'd be a bit like displaying 480i images on a 1080p screen.

Meanwhile you get the power savings, higher speeds, smaller size, and increased yields per platter for the smaller process.

Might not be the most 'efficient' way to do it, but reducing the chip count can save far more money in the long run. After all, you're saving space, board traces, an extra chip package, and all the plastic, weight, transportation, soldering, inventory issues it entails.

I mean, imagine a computer on/in a chip - Sure, it's not upgradable, but it has the CPU, memory, north bridge, south bridge, video and sound all integrated. The board(today) only needs to have transfer traces for the power, video, network, sound, USB, and SATA. Deluxe version includes firewire. If they need serial/parallel ports, use a USB bridge.

How expensive would this be? How power efficient? How small? Heck, I'd imagine that you could make it small enough to fit into the back of a LCD monitor. ;)

System on a Chip
System in a Package

Heck, I've figured they've done stuff like this for watches/clock radios/cheap calculators for years.

Re:Package Size

[IorDMUX]

Yeah, I was thinking about that. But even scaling up the PMU transistors, you'd still be stuck with the poor voltage tolerances, leakages, etc... I mean, it's certainly possible, but it looks like Broadcom has decided to off-chip the headphone, USB, battery charging, and similar functions which are normally implemented in the PMU.

As far as System In Package goes, I'm all for that. You can even use multiple dies (say, a 65 nm RF die, a 65 nm digital die, and a 180 nm PMU die) and get around all these problems. (In fact, that's done all the time today. Most modern wireless devices have at least one SIP running their insides.) But Broadcom claimed a 1-chip solution, which seems to mean 1-die, so I was intrigued.

Re:Package Size

[Firethorn]

Isn't leakage not so much a function of the process as the size of the traces/components and the subsequent closeness? IE if you're imitating a 180nm die(to give some amperage capacity) with 65nm, wouldn't you get 180nm or better leakage, since the traces would be very accurage compared to a true 180nm process?

Maybe they decided to go for a PMU that ONLY powers the radio stuff. That way you only need a few power traces to the chip, leaving the rest of the stuff for a seperate PMU. Helps keep the board simple. I also read somewhere about developers coming up with a hybrid digital/RF analoge die methodology.

Then again, maybe this design is actually a SIP that they're misterming a 'chip', since most people view the casing(and it's contents) as a 'chip', not just the silicon wafer inside. Still, if you can get yields high enough SIP is more expensive than single wafer design. If they've figured out how to build 'everything RF' into a single wafer suitable for usage in a cell phone/PDA/laptop it'd be quite the kudos. Then again, this isn't everything RF, many devices would still need a cellular chip. Ah well, they have something to work on next... ;)

SoftRadio?

[Skinkie]

So is this a software defined radio? With some cleaver filter techniques or is something cooler going on?

Re:SoftRadio?

[amirulbahr]

From the block diagram, it looks like there are three distinct RF front-ends.

Re:SoftRadio?

[ceoyoyo]

Uh, neither. It's a wifi radio supporting two different protocols glued to an FM radio.

It's much less cool than a software radio.

FM transmission?!?

[Locke2005]

That would be used for what, exactly?

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending bluetooth from your phone to your car stereo, or downloading mp3s from your wireless network to play them in your car later.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[JesseMcDonald]

Well, like numerous similar (non-integrated) devices already on the market, it would probably be used most often to link the host device's portable media player function to a car stereo system. These are low-power transmitters, with a range of no more than a few feet, designed for use on otherwise unoccupied channels. There are no significant interference issues to worry about.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[nickspoon]

Recent MP3 players and accessories have included the (fairly recently legalised in the UK) ability to send low-power FM transmissions on certain frequencies. This is good for playing music from your player in your car, or possibly on your stereo at home - although obviously you can expect a loss in quality.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

For play over a car radio without a cable I'd imagine.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[pak9rabid]

That would be used for what, exactly?

A cell phone that provides functionality to tune into FM radio stations perhaps? That'd be a nice feature for the next iPhone.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Locke2005]

I hadn't thought of using it to play your MP3s through your car stereo. Just bear in mind that all 3 of these radio services are mutually exclusive, and although you can time division multiplex between 802.11n and Bluetooth, if you are doing FM, that is pretty much the only thing you can do for the whole time. FM wireless transmission in a car is very much subject to interference; even the cassette tape emulator my wife uses to play her iPod on her car stereo works better. Ideally, car stereos would just come with a USB connector on the front panel! By the way, I've tried streaming hi-def videos over 802.11n to my MacBook while listening to the audio on Bluetooth stereo headphones and it DOES NOT WORK. There is just enough audio dropout over the Bluetooth to be extremely annoying; I don't know whether or not it can be fixed in firmware. Putting all your radios in the same chip should make it easier to time division multiplex them.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Locke2005]

I'm not an RF Engineer, but I suspect that the periodic transmissions the iPhone sends to the cell tower would wreck havoc with FM reception -- in other words, you could use it to listen to FM music only if you turned the cell phone feature off first. Also might not work with Bluetooth enabled, even though that is a much weaker signal, so forget about listening to the radio on bluetooth headphones... besides which, if you've got an iPhone, can't you stream most radio stations over the 3G network?

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Tony Hoyle]

Hasn't stopped about half the existing phones on the planet having FM receivers... It's a solved problem.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Shatrat]

Ideally, car stereos would just come with a USB connector on the front panel!

USB? I really dislike the trend of using USB for everything, no matter how badly suited.
A simple 3.5mm stereo jack is the most versatile possible solution IMO.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[compro01]

I don't see how, as they're all on completely different frequency bands. FM is 100-ish mhz, Cells are at the lowest in the 450mhz-band, and up to the 1800mhz band, and bluetooth is up in the 2400mhz band.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[JohnnyBGod]

...except it can't power your device while you're listening.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[silas_moeckel]

I hate to disagree but a USB jack that works with a line in to USB adapter is the most versatile of the two. 3.5mm stereo jack takes us all the way back to unbalanced analog 2 channel audio at best. These has to be a pile of cheap chips to do the conversion.

My current setup gets me 5.1 digital audio at the bit rate and compression of my choosing, video as well, works with my steering wheel controls, and will allow for my main screen and 2 auxiliary screens to all have there own content (only 2 audio channels on those) all played back from the same storage device. Sure it's got it's own internal HD etc but people want to play back there ipods etc on occasion and I only upload/sync what I like via WiFi or 3G/EDGE.

I will agree that USB is not well suited but Firewire never took off, HDMI is to DRM laden and not suited for portable devices and spdif does not provide power (HDMI either for that matter).

Re:FM transmission?!?

[rdnetto]

Ideally, car stereos would just come with a USB connector on the front panel!

I agree. How many cars and alarm clocks are there with support for the iPod? Heaps. Now how many are there with support for a generic USB UMS/MSC device? Zero (AFAIK).

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that they would need to TDM the transmissions. Bluetooth is Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) and 802.11 is Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS). While they are working in the same ISM band they should be relatively harmless to each other. As another point, the later revisions of the Bluetooth spec require selectively adapting the channel hop to those channels with less base noise, in theory the Bluetooth channels that overlap with the used 802.11 channel should just be shed from the hop pattern.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[TheThiefMaster]

My car radio (a Sony) has bluetooth, supporting not only hands-free for my phone (a Sony-Ericsson), but also music streaming. I get in to my car, pick a playlist on my phone and press play and the sound comes from my car speakers. As the phone has a 2GB micro-memory-stick in it, I can bring quite a lot of music around with me.

Much better than a tape emulator, burning cds repeatedly, or using a short-range FM transmitter.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[ConanG]

It can't power the device (as JohnnyBGod) said), and you can't control the music with the radio controls. Also, a USB port allows one to use a simple flash drive, instead of a full MP3 player.

Seems to me it's perfectly suited, not ill suited.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[RMH101]

Not that uncommon.
All VAG group (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda) have an option to replace the CD autochanger with a USB socket mounted in car for music playback.
Fiat have "Blue and Me" (in partnership with Microsoft!) which features a USB socket that'll play media, and also allow you to download information about your driving and economy, as fitted to the new Fiat 500, and others.
I've seen something that looks like an identical product mentioned in the US, as well.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a stereo input jack in my old car, but I gotta say I was green with envy when car stereos that you could just plug a USB memory stick into started rolling out.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[repvik]

My really cheap car stereo has support for "anything" USB, right next to a SD-card reader...

Re:FM transmission?!?

[repvik]

Say what now? I had no problems listening to FM radio on my HTC p3300 (Artemis), while feeding the music over A2DP to my bluetooth headset. We're talking three wildly different frequency bands here (~100mhz, 900-2100mhz and 2.4ghz), so what exactly would be the problem?

Re:FM transmission?!?

[bluefoxlucid]

What do 802.11 and Bluetooth do?

Re:FM transmission?!?

[fuliginous]

No it's OK if they don't share an antenna, gets really tricky if they do. (I'm in the vicinity of listening to lots of conversations about this sort of thing.)

Will it work on Linux?

[pembo13]

That's my primary deciding factor when I am purchasing wireless interfaces.

Re:Will it work on Linux?

[sricetx]

The Arstechnica article doesn't mention Linux support, but given Broadcom's history with Linux and their 802.11g chips, I would say that there will be a long wait for working Linux drivers. I'd consider Broadcom the third worst 802.11x chip maker for Linux. Better than Marvell or TI, but not by much. For now your best best for working wireless devices in Linux are Intel, Atheros and Ralink based devices.

Re:Will it work on Linux?

[amirulbahr]

It will be up to the people making use of this chip to make sure their devices work on Linux. This thing is designed for mobile phones more than anything else.

Re:Will it work on Linux?

[Jason Earl]

I'm pretty sure that some mobile phones run on Linux :).

Re:Will it work on Linux?

[amirulbahr]

I'm pretty sure that if you will be building a mobile phone and deciding to use this chip then you will be responsible for writing whatever software glue you think is necessary. Whether you are running Linux or something else is irrelevant.

OP made it sound like he thought this was some sort of USB dongle he could buy to stick in his laptop.

Linux laptops

[mgkimsal2]

So now we can have *3* devices that don't work in our laptops running Linux, instead of potentially only 1 or 2 not work! Awesome :)

Re:Linux laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, Linux weenies want the world handed to them for free go figure.

When I make my killer hardware device, I'm giving it away for free and selling the drivers for 5 times what I could make for the hardware. But oh yeah, no Windows drivers ever, only Mac and Linux. Don't see why anyone would want drivers for a dying operating system.

Re:Linux laptops

[MadnessASAP]

Becuase they would be shutting out 90% of the market and therefore be even bigger morons then Broadcom?

Re:Linux laptops

[Medgur]

The Linux users have paid for the hardware, same as everyone else. All they're asking for is the minimum specifications so they can write the software to make it work themselves.

Re:Linux laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

A McDonalds customer buys all the groceries needed to make his own BigMac. All he's asking for is the correct amount of each ingredient to make a perfect BigMac at home.
Why doesn't McDonalds give him the recipe?

Average joe buys or makes all the ingredients needed to make the perfect Coca-Cola syrup. All he's asking is that Coca-Cola give him the right proportions so he can make it himself.

Re:Linux laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow nice mouth to suck Gates cock from here.

Re:Linux laptops

[nog_lorp]

Shameless troll, but I'll bite.
Average Joe buys a kit car, and all the tools he needs to build it, all he is asking for is the fucking manual.

Re:Linux laptops

[TeXMaster]

Wrong metaphor. We're not asking for assembling instructions, we're asking for fruition instructions. If you still want to hold to the assembling metaphor, it's like getting an extremely complex (and disassembled) appliance at IKEA, but not getting assembling instructions in your language.

Re:Linux laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

If I may stretch the analogy a bit the language you "read" is Mongolian or some other not too popular language and your demanding the furniture store to cater to your tiny group.

Re:Linux laptops

[p0tat03]

Except the computer was not sold to you as a "kit computer". It was sold to you as one piece, with the guarantee that it runs OS X, Windows, or whatever the hell. The fact that you want to run Linux on it is your own responsibility, and although it would be totally awesome to get the company's support doing it, it's certainly not owed to you.

It's like buying a GM car, wanting to install a turbocharger, and then asking GM for the complete blueprints to their engine. Sure, it would be cool if GM did so, but they are certainly under no obligations to.

Re:Linux laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux users have paid for the hardware, same as everyone else. All they're asking for is the minimum specifications so they can write the software to make it work themselves.

Caveat emptor.

It's the buyers responsibility to research the purchase. If you don't like Broadcom, do not give them your money. Even better than just not giving them your money buy something else and tell both parties why you chose the other. Maybe even email them a .jpg scan of the receipt of your purchase (to the higher up level people as high up as you can find email addresses for).

Re:Linux laptops

[nog_lorp]

The kit car wasn't a metaphor for the computer, it was a metaphor for the chip.

It's more like GM selling you a car with no manual, not making the service manuals available, and only giving Jiffy Lube the information necessary to repair their cars. This would be illegal trust behavior, by the way.

Re:Linux laptops

[TheThiefMaster]

That is a pretty good analogy :) ...but I don't currently have any mod points.

Re:Linux laptops

[MikeBabcock]

Incorrect analogy. The Linux user isn't changing the product in any way, just using it.

This is more akin to a handicapped person buying a Big Mac from McDonald's and not being able to figure out how to open the cardboard box its in on their own.

I'm betting a McD's employee would help. Broadcom would tell them to enjoy their Big Mac IN the box.

FM?

[Anonymous Coward]

"802.11n, Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, and FM reception/transmission"

The former two are the latter...

Whats new with that?

[aywwts4]

We have to code the effing drivers anyways.

Re:Whats new with that?

[theaveng]

If you think it's so easy, I have a challenge for you:

I bought a digital-to-analog converter box (Zenith DTT901) to sit on top of my TV. It includes a chip to decode QAM but that function is disabled due to Congressional law. Several people have tried but not been able to make the QAM function work; can you do it?

As an alternative, I'd be happy just to get S-video out of this box. Again, so far, no one has been able to hack it for this task.

Re:Whats new with that?

[bluefoxlucid]

Congressional law? QAM is used for reception of digital cable...

Re:Whats new with that?

[fuliginous]

Not always, support for CSR's implementation of UWB (ultra wide band) for example is already in the Linux Kernel. Way before it's going to be in any products.

Re:Whats new with that?

[theaveng]

Congressional law states that coupon-eligible converter boxes may not decode QAM or output component video, therefore even though the functionality is included on the "all in one" chip, it has been disabled by the manufacturer to be compliant with the law.

Re:Whats new with that?

[bluefoxlucid]

What the clueless fucking hell kind of bullshit law is that?

Re:Whats new with that?

[aywwts4]

S-Video isn't even allowed. Which is a standard def only format.

The misguided motivation behind the congressional law was that they didn't want people with HD-TVs using government funds to buy an extra toy.

The problem is some people have an old HDTV without an ATSC terrestrial tuner.

Narrowcom?

[Ostracus]

"Meanwhile, the manufacturers who play nice with Linux are reaping the benefits of the Linux-running hardware tinkerer's credit cards."

Obviously you didn't hear the news about the credit crunch. Anyway tinkerers have always been a small part of overall sales for a manufacturer. Not because they don't have the money but because most people buy hardware to solve a problem. Not tinker with endlessly into the night.

"This isn't rocket science... the more places your device can work, the bigger your market."

They're devices already WORK. Just because they don't play nice with a small subset of the population doesn't mean they're unsuccessful. They're a chip vendor, not Apple computers selling a finished product to discriminating buyers. The people who work with what they sell work for companies that already can afford NDAs.

Package Size-Multitasking.

[Ostracus]

"(perhaps it's our effort to make everything smaller that has caused the decline in masculinity talked about earlier today)"

Hey! You can fit more of them in your pocket.

I don't think you have the quite the right mindest

[Arthur Grumbine]

1) Broadcom Bluetooth 2.0+EDR adapter
2) Broadcom 802.11n adapter
3) Broadcom FM receiver/transmitter
4) Broadcom Office Pro:
802.11n with BONUS Bluetooth!! Let's you stay connected and productive WHEREVER you go!11!
5) Broadcom Mobile:
802.11n with BONUS FM radio!! Great for connecting to your friend's Wifi AND playing tunes through your car radio!!11!
6) Broadcom Media Pro:
Bluetooth 2.0+EDR with BONUS FM radio!! Play radio directly to your Bluetooth headset ZOMG!!11!
7) Broadcom Ultimate*:
802.11n with BONUS Bluetooth AND FM radio!!11! For the person who has EVERYTHING!1!11!!

* - requires 4GB of RAM for all features

FM transmission?!?-Pickup lines.

[Ostracus]

"These are low-power transmitters, with a range of no more than a few feet, designed for use on otherwise unoccupied channels."

Hey, that's nice. I can do Mr Microphone into my laptop.

LG Chocolate 3 does this already.

[AmigaHeretic]

http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/lg/chocolate-3.html

It has a digital FM transmiter on screen. On the display you can just go through the stations digitally that you want to transmit on 88.1 - 107.x

Kinda cool...

Drivers

[leamanc]

Broadcom crams all these functions on to one chip. And still won't release drivers for Linux. ndiswrapper lives on...

But does it run linux?

[bensch128]

No seriously does it?

Because in the past broadcom has released chips with ZERO linux support which have been successfully in the marketplace and
then required years for people to reverse engineer them.

I suspect the same will happen here... :(

Later Announcement, More Details

[TheModelEskimo]

In a later announcement, excited Broadcom executives and laboratory scientists said during a joint press conference that it is physically impossible to make the new chip compatible with Linux.

"We really want to be clear about this groundbreaking news," Broadcom chief scientist Daryl Ellison said. "Not only is this a miracle of modern technology, but it will be frustratingly incompatible with Linux installs everywhere. This continues our absolutely firm commitment - to keep Ubuntu off of the laptop you got for Christmas last year, every year."

Broadcom public relations executives could not be reached for comment.

This story is lame

[LingNoi]

I thought this could be interesting discussion however it's comment after comment of "waa waa waa no linux drivers, broadcom sucks"

Yeah, like complaining on slashdot is going to help.... *rolls eyes*

Re:This story is lame

[hattig]

I expect that Broadcom will update their STA binary drivers for Linux to support this chip. They already support 4321 and 4322 802.11a/b/g/n products, so this 4329 can't be that different - probably the same wifi core on an integrated package on a smaller process...

Yes, I know, Broadcom have Linux drivers for some of their products! Shocking, eh? I know it is binary only (apart from an open-source kernel adaptor layer) but it's a move forward for Linux on the desktop.

http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php

5 GHz in mobile devices long overdue

[isaac]

What's most exciting here is this chipset coming in a 2.4/5Ghz version. The 2.4 GHz ISM band is a foamy sea of garbage where I live - In my living room my laptop will hear 60+ different 802.11b/g SSID beacons within 15 minutes. I can't get 5 meters of reliable range out of any WAP in 2.4 Ghz, and I've tried several. Since switching to 5GHz-only 802.11n, connectivity is rock steady - but now I have to bridge my assorted 2.4GHz-only kit (Wii, etc.) online.

5GHz support is my make-or-break feature for wifi-enabled gadgetry now.

-Isaac

Yeah more shit from Broadcomm

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they open sourced their shit, so we wouldnt have to deal with no drivers and ndiswrapper all the time.

Im tired of buying hardware with their ubiquitous shit.

Linux

[FungusCannon]

Does this mean I'll have to chop up the Windows driver to get the firmware for this chip? I hate doing that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And in other news.....

[PontifexMaximus]

their drivers still suck so bad that NONE of the functions on their chip work.

I'm not really that excited by this...

[kabocox]

I'd actually be half way excited if this entire thing was open source hardware. I could see that getting posted to slashdot. I just don't see why this even should hold my attention after 10 seconds of reading comments on it. It's just about a manufacturers press release of something that's not too exciting any way.