Experience with ftdi fifo to USB 3.0

[FreezeSSC]

Anyone have experience using ftdi's fifo to USB 3.0 aka ft600?  Wanting to building a new system that uses that for the read out, currently need about 2 Gbs of bandwidth. 

Using a chip like that would allow me to keep my MCU simple as I'm just transferring data and not really doing much else with it, but I've seen some negative comments online about ftdi in general so I was hoping to get some feedback from people that have used it or maybe the Cypress version. 

[SiliconWizard]

Nope, I opened a thread about that a while ago, but eventually falled back to USB 2.0 for this particular project, so not tried the FT60x line yet, although I'm planning to.

Just one thing I can say. If I'm not mistaken, the max bus clock rate of the FIFO is 100MHz. So if you're using the 16-bit version, you can't get more than 200MBytes/s (M as in million here, that's about 190MiB/s), and double that with the 32-bit version, and that's the absolute best case, you'll get less in practice. So in your case, I think you should go for the 32-bit version. Whatever you mean by "2Gbs" (I infer this would imply 250MB/s of actual data rate, don't confuse the low-level bandwidth and the data rate you'll get out of it), it looks like the 16-bit version would not cut it at all. So you'd need the FT601, not the FT600.

[FreezeSSC]

Yes I was indeed planning on using the 601 for the 32bit wide fifo, that way I can use a simple pic MCU to clock out the data at 100Mhz or less and not have to go with some arm processor.

Googling ftdi give a lot of negative comments online so I was wondering if there's a hidden gotcha or something im missing as to why people have that opinion. 

[agehall]

Google "FTDIgate".

[SiliconWizard]

(...) as to why people have that opinion.

Well, what opinion is it? Care to post some examples? And does it have anything to do with the products themselves?

[magic]

I suppose it's about the hate they got for blocking (and at one point bricking) knockoff FT232 UARTS.

AFAIK nothing similar ever happened to their other products and nothing should in principle happen to you unless you end up using fake FTDI parts.

[SiliconWizard]

If that's just that, this is plain stupid, and I feel for FTDI for still suffering from it...

We talked about that a lot already. But hey. Was it a smart move from FTDI at the time? Nope, given the public reaction, and they could have anticipated that. Was the public reaction out of proportion? I think so. Would you, as a manufacturer, have been affected by this if you only used reputable resellers? Not really. As a customer? Mostly for cheap gear. If you lost a couple bucks over this, big deal. Get over it and stop buying crap, or know what to expect if you do.

It wasn't smart of FTDI, but they quickly stopped it, never did it again, and anyway it affected only the low-end parts. It wasn't smart, but hey I can understand why they would have felt fed up being ripped off with all this shameless cloning. It has never affected the higher-end parts AFAIK anyway, such as the FT232H, FT2232H, etc, and FT60x. Guess they are much too complicated to clone. I'd still be wary of buying any of those off Aliexpress though...

[PCB.Wiz]

Yes I was indeed planning on using the 601 for the 32bit wide fifo, that way I can use a simple pic MCU to clock out the data at 100Mhz or less and not have to go with some arm processor.

You might need to check that 'or less' carefully.
FWIR looking at these parts, the clock choice was quite constrained. Looks to be 66MHz or 100MHz and always output from FT6xx only, so the companion part needs to be a precise slave.

[asmi]

I used FT601 with FPGA, here is a result I got: Bandwidth is 323.069 MBytes/s, Read 16 GBytes in 50713.6 ms
The test was performed while connected to a Windows computer directly to a USB 3.0 port(no hubs), using FT D3XX API in .NET application. The chip was configured in a 1 IN/1 OUT mode. This is a real bandwidth as measured at the application level (so all overheads are already included). The board itself was custom-designed, although FTDI sells cheap (<100$) daughter cards which are compatible with many Xilinx/Antel devboards if you don't feel like designing the board yourself.
I found the chip very easy to work with as far as protocol is concerned, the only parts I don't like are the price, and the fact that it's a rather large QFN with 0.4 mm pitch, so it can be tricky to solder.

[SiliconWizard]

The price is not that bad. Like less than 10USD per 1 (currently 9.69USD per 1 at Digikey). The only credible alternative at the moment is the Cypress FX3, wich is a lot more pain to work with and costs at least twice as much depending on the version... (may be interesting if you plan on using the FX3 MCU for other tasks, but if not, now that's expensive.) The FX3 comes in BGA package, could be easier to work with as far as assembly goes.

[FreezeSSC]

I used FT601 with FPGA, here is a result I got: Bandwidth is 323.069 MBytes/s, Read 16 GBytes in 50713.6 ms
The test was performed while connected to a Windows computer directly to a USB 3.0 port(no hubs), using FT D3XX API in .NET application. The chip was configured in a 1 IN/1 OUT mode. This is a real bandwidth as measured at the application level (so all overheads are already included). The board itself was custom-designed, although FTDI sells cheap (<100$) daughter cards which are compatible with many Xilinx/Antel devboards if you don't feel like designing the board yourself.
I found the chip very easy to work with as far as protocol is concerned, the only parts I don't like are the price, and the fact that it's a rather large QFN with 0.4 mm pitch, so it can be tricky to solder.

Those are some great figures! I've ordered a daughter card to just start messing around with one but glad to hear that the throughput holds up. 

[asmi]

One advice if you end up designing a board with it - watch out for the cross-talk. 32 bits is a lot of parallel traces to route, and routing out 0.4 mm pitch QFN is not a simple task. Consider using 2.5 V VCCIO if you can (you can use 1.8 V as well, but this mode only supports 66 MHz clock), also see if you can add small serial termination resistors (20-30 Ohm) to reduce reflections (run trace simulations to determine exact termination values).

[mikerj]

It wasn't smart of FTDI, but they quickly stopped it, never did it again,

The point is that they DID do it again.

[asmi]

The point is that they DID do it again.

I personally don't care. If you buy stuff with fake parts, you take responsibility for consequences.

[langwadt]

The point is that they DID do it again.

I personally don't care. If you buy stuff with fake parts, you take responsibility for consequences.

how do you know if you get fakes parts?

[jhpadjustable]

The point is that they DID do it again.

I personally don't care. If you buy stuff with fake parts, you take responsibility for consequences.

The destruction of customer-owned equipment in which FTDI is not a party to any implied or express contract is not a consequence. A human made the decision and a human acted upon it. As far as I'm concerned, FTDI needs a paddlin' with criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or applicable equivalent, just like any child that breaks someone else's window just because they have the same street number as his own home.

[asmi]

The destruction of customer-owned equipment in which FTDI is not a party to any implied or express contract is not a consequence. A human made the decision and a human acted upon it. As far as I'm concerned, FTDI needs a paddlin' with criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or applicable equivalent, just like any child that breaks someone else's window just because they have the same street number as his own home.

Have you already sued them then, or it's just usual hot air? Or maybe you should've sued a vendor that used these fake parts instead (because the fact that it was affected is a proof positive that it was fake)?
Anyway, the point is - use genuine parts, and you don't have to worry about any of this. If you prefer to cheap out and play Russian Roulette instead - well you will have to take responsibility for consequences.

[Howardlong]

Anyway, the point is - use genuine parts, and you don't have to worry about any of this. If you prefer to cheap out and play Russian Roulette instead - well you will have to take responsibility for consequences.

And if you use a contract manufacturer who source their own parts? I guarantee you that from my own experience, some assemblers will do everything they can to reduce cost, including the use of dodgy parts.

You can build into the contract that they use properly sourced parts all you like, in practice some do ignore that to make a few more pennies. After all, what are you going to do? The damage is already done. If the CEM is in China for example, good luck with that!

[OwO]

ftdigate aside, the prices of the chips are simply unacceptable for anything other than one-offs and high end test equipment.

[voltsandjolts]

Choosing the lowest cost assembler certainly leaves your business and your customers open to downtime from fake silicon. That's your choice.
FTDI did what had to be done, as did Prolific (with PL2303). SiLabs will do it next, after they get popular enough to be cloned.
Of course the root cause here is the copyright infringers who can operate with impunity inside China. So blame their teddy bear Jinping, not FTDI.

[langwadt]

Choosing the lowest cost assembler certainly leaves your business and your customers open to downtime from fake silicon. That's your choice.
FTDI did what had to be done, as did Prolific (with PL2303). SiLabs will do it next, after they get popular enough to be cloned.
Of course the root cause here is the copyright infringers who can operate with impunity inside China. So blame their teddy bear Jinping, not FTDI.

and the only ones hurt is end customers who have no idea if what they get is fake and ftdi because noone wants to take the chance that they might be getting a fake

everyone switched to FTDI when Prolific  was no longer reliable, now everyone is switching to something else

[asmi]

and the only ones hurt is end customers who have no idea if what they get is fake and ftdi because noone wants to take the chance that they might be getting a fake

If they couldn't be bothered to research that they support pirates - it's their problem.

everyone switched to FTDI when Prolific  was no longer reliable, now everyone is switching to something else

Who exactly is that "everyone"? I still see FTDI chips everywhere except in the cheap-ass Chinese crap.

[Howardlong]

Choosing the lowest cost assembler certainly leaves your business and your customers open to downtime from fake silicon. That's your choice.

I agree, I learned that the hard way about a decade ago, not with FTDI but with some TI LDOs. As I've alluded to several times over the years on this forum, you can make China assembly work, but you must have someone you completely trust on the ground looking after your interests. For a one man band or very small operation, that probably means going over there yourself, which in itself might make that 10ku run nowhere near as cheap as you thought it might be. FWIW the end result is that all my assembly is done with a local firm.

FTDI did what had to be done, as did Prolific (with PL2303). SiLabs will do it next, after they get popular enough to be cloned.

I don't think it turned out well reputationally for FTDI though, frustrating as it might be for them. Bricking devices like they did just made future customers avoid them. The approach just to stop working, but fixable by rolling back the driver, is a far more acceptable approach IMHO. At least then that's a way for the end user and the presumably unaware OEM to resolve the issue immediately, and in the longer term, repair the affected units. Even this approach has its risks, for example if it's a safety of life application: not even an on-site gold stock device swap is going to fix it as it's a common mode failure.

[tszaboo]

It wasn't smart of FTDI, but they quickly stopped it, never did it again,

The point is that they DID do it again.

The point is, professionals don't care. I have an entire department in the company responsible for supply chain. They make sure that what we buy is authentic. The chinese can write their own drivers.

[SiliconWizard]

It wasn't smart of FTDI, but they quickly stopped it, never did it again,

The point is that they DID do it again.

When? I haven't really followed all the drama about it in details. I was under the impression that after they released those drivers that would brick counterfeit ICs, and it caused them more problems than it solved, they withdrew them. Did they ever release similar bricking drivers after that? I may again not have followed all the drama episodes, but I didn't think so. Can you point us to the info?

As others have said here, it doesn't really even matter. People were just barking at the wrong tree.
The "normal" process, from a commercial POV and legally-wise, would be the following:

- Customer buys a product;
- At some point, the product stops working (for a seemingly unknown reason at first);
- Customer then gets back to their seller asking for a replacement/repair/refund;
- If the product is under warranty, the seller MUST provide a solution; when the warranty has to be handled directly with the manufacturer, this must be indicated clearly in the product's info, with indications on how to return it;
- If it's not under warranty, then customer is basically screwed - just like with any failing product, this is pretty much how sales work;
- If it was, and it got back to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer doesn't replace it or doesn't even respond : they are clearly at fault and should be prosecuted for this;
- If the manufacturer takes action, and finds out the issue, what are they going to do? Depends. Either they didn't know they were supplied with counterfeit parts, and they are the victims; they should in turn get back to their reseller;
- If the manufacturer was fully aware, they are using counterfeit parts knowingly, which is completely ILLEGAL;

There is a whole chain of legal actions to take before even thinking of blaming FTDI here. How many customers actually complained to their resellers, then up to the manufacturer of the products, before whining about FTDI in forums and Youtube? They were actually just encouraging manufacturers to make more counterfeit products with that behavior... Without ever realizing this is not legal (I know many don't care, but hey.)

Now what wasn't smart (and looks like retaliation more than just protection) is that FTDI could JUST have made their new drivers NOT function with counterfeit parts instead of bricking them. That would have been perfectly acceptable legally-wise (copy-protection schemes do this kind of stuff and that poses issues to no one). Then the dubious manufacturers would have had to provide their own drivers, which I suppose would have made a lot of them give up, because this is actually a hard part with significant work to do, a lot of potential tech support, etc... (writing robust and compatible drivers for all OS versions IS very hard and time-consuming.)

And now, back to the products.
FTDI products have actually been very good, almost from the start. I remember when they released the FT245 - that was fantastic stuff at the time compared to the existing solutions, including the royalty free drivers... And now with the higher-end USB-HS and USB-SS solutions, there's competition, but really not much at all. For HS, yeah there are MCUs that embed USB-HS, but they are a lot more work usually, having to write your own USB device stack, or relying on vendor libraries that are often buggy as hell. And then there are the drivers... Besides, if you need an FPGA to access USB, having to use an extra MCU (with necessary software on it) just for USB is NOT painless, and can be problematic validation-wise.

As to cost, they are really not expensive. A few bucks for HS or SS? As I said earlier, for SS, the only comparable solution is the FX3, which is a lot more pain to integrate, again there's the drivers issue, and the FX3s cost close to twice as much?

Only the low-end parts are concerned both by this countefeiting drama AND by cost considerations IMO (ie. mostly the basic UART-USB ICs.)
But for that, if you really want to bypass FTDI, there are alternatives that are cheaper AND are not counterfeits. Use them and move on.