Any plans to produce G4 core in other packaging types?

[octal]

Hello,
I just want to know if there were any projects on releasing G4 chips in packages other than BGA one?
TQFP/LQFP would be nice to be able to make hand soldered prototypes.

[leon_heller]

It's just got too many I/Os as it stands. I suppose that they would produce a version with fewer I/Os if there was a demand for it.

[octal]

This is the main problem I think. Sometimes we need only about 50 to 60 I/O pins, but we still need the power (and SRAM) of the 4 cores. It would be nice to have a version that has all 4 cores but with less pins.

[leon_heller]

Yes, it would be nice for many compute-intensive applications.

[bearcat]

I would like to see a compute engine only. 1-4 cores (L series compatible) in a mostly I/O less package with a couple XLINKs. Simply have another L1 that handles the I/O.

[octal]

@bearcat,
why another L1 to handle I/O? I really want simply a G4 with only L1 pins ... 64 TQFP/LQFP connected to one core, and 3 other cores to communicate with the first (I/O) core.

[Bianco]

This is the main problem I think. Sometimes we need only about 50 to 60 I/O pins, but we still need the power (and SRAM) of the 4 cores. It would be nice to have a version that has all 4 cores but with less pins.

The G4-144BGA is a cut down package with less IO compared to the G4-512BGA which has all the IO.

[bearcat]

A G4 in in 64 pin TQFP would be great. I mentioned an L1 since the XLINK is only compatible with an L1, which would be best. A G4 link would require at a minimum another G4 to do the I/O, which is a problem for smaller developer. As the G4 would typically require a 4 layer board, as both of the G4 typically would need.

[Folknology]

We have seen mentions of an L4 in some documentation (I forget which) so that may solve the issue if it turns out to have non-bga packaging, but don't hold your breath as the pin count goes up the likely hood of bga rises!

regards
Al