EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGY


COM, SOM and SMARC T


A review by David Bushnell, Inelco Hunter MD


he terms Computer on Module (COM) and System on Module (SOM) are often used interchangeably within the industry, but there are subtle differences that are worth consideration.


Computer on Module (COM) A COM typically includes a processor, memory and essential peripherals on a single board. The primary function is to provide computing power and it often requires a carrier board for I/O and additional connectivity.


System on Module (SOM) A SOM is like a COM, but typically includes more integrated components to form a more complete system. Components include a processor, memory, storage and I/O interfaces, plus integrated peripherals such as numeric and graphics processing.


Key differences between COMs and SOMs


COMs focus on providing core computing capabilities, while SOMs are designed to be closer to complete systems with more integrated peripherals. SOMs are more self-contained and are preferred for applications needing a compact, integrated solution.


The SMARC Standard


Developed by the Standardisation Group for Embedded Technologies (SGET), Smart Mobility ARChitecture (SMARC) is a standard designed to provide a standardised form factor and interface for embedded computing applications.


SMARC modules come in two standard sizes: 82 mm x 50 mm and 82 mm x 80 mm. Designed for low-power applications, SMARC modules typically consume between 2 and 6 watts. A wide range of interfaces are supported, including displays, cameras, connectivity, storage, peripherals and audio.


When to choose a COM If the project requires a highly customised carrier board to meet specific I/O requirements, a COM is the best solution. The carrier board can be designed to include only the necessary interfaces and peripherals. COMs offer flexibility for a range of applications, allowing the same module


16


to be used with different carrier boards for different projects.


For large-scale production, designing a custom carrier board can be more cost-effective than purchasing more integrated SOMs, especially when only the core computing power is required. COMs allow for easier upgrades of the core computing module without changing the carrier board, providing a path for future performance improvements.


When to choose a SOM SOMs integrate more components and peripherals on the module itself, providing a near-complete system that requires minimal additional hardware. This is ideal for applications needing compact, self-contained solutions. This can significantly reduce development time and effort, allowing for quicker deployment of products.


For compact, low-power applications, SOMs are suitable for portable and battery-powered devices where space and power efficiency are critical. SOMs simplify the development process by providing a more complete hardware solution, which can be an advantage for teams with limited expertise in hardware design.


A typical SMARC SOM The new SMARC System-on-Module from JULY/AUGUST 2024 | ELECTRONICS FOR ENGINEERS


Inelco Hunter is a powerful, ultra-small SOM designed for applications demanding a compact form and energy efficiency. This SOM uses the SMARC standard, making it fit for mobile devices, fleet management, factory automation, medical equipment, portable devices and industrial IoT applications.


The new Inelco Hunter module integrates core SOM functions, including SDRAM and Flash memory, within a standardised footprint of 82mm x 50mm. At its core is the robust RK3568 Quad-Core ARM Cortex-A55 CPU. Integrated peripherals include numeric and graphics processing capabilities. The graphics GPU is a Mali-G52-2EE, supporting OpenGL ES 1.1/2.0/3.2, OpenCL 2.0, and Vulkan 1.1, whilst the NPU RKNN Accelerator provides remarkable processing power, up to 1 TOPS. Memory configuration includes onboard SDRAM and eMMC Flash.


Conclusions: COM, SOM and SMARC Ultimately, the decision will depend on the specific requirements of the project, including the desired level of integration, development timeline, budget and the need for customisation versus a ready-to-use solution.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54