Go Down

Topic: Arduino Nano 33 BLE same as ESP32? (Read 622 times) previous topic - next topic

Bjerknez

Is the new Nano 33 BLE an direct competitor to the ESP32 board?

Juraj


Idahowalker

nRF52840 from Nordic Semiconductors, a 32-bit ARM® Cortex™-M4 CPU running at 64 MHz

VS

(ESP32) Xtensa dual-core 32-bit LX6 microprocessor, operating at 240 MHz.

Not even close.

DrAzzy

Also, one supported by official arduino team, the other is supported by a third party core.
ATTinyCore for x4/x5/x61/x7/x8/x41/1634/828/x313 megaTinyCore for the megaavr ATtinies - Board Manager:
http://drazzy.com/package_drazzy.com_index.json
ATtiny breakouts, mosfets, awesome prototyping board in my store http://tindie.com/stores/DrAzzy

Bjerknez

Yes, i know that.

I meant Arduino Nanon 33 iot in my first post.

I saw Andreas (The guy with the swizz accent) on YoutTube tested theese, and he concluded that ESP32 is still the best choice.

pert

Note that the u-blox NINA-W102 WiFi module on the Nano 33 IoT uses an ESP32 microcontroller. So the Nano 33 IoT is an ATSAMD21G18 and an ESP32 combined together on a nice little board. Your code runs on the ATSAMD21G18, which communicates with the ESP32 running a firmware Arduino wrote. The ESP32 is used for WiFi and BLE, though you could install your own firmware to the ESP32 and do other things with it if you liked.

The advantage of the ATSAMD21G18 is that it has an excellent level of support. Arduino has had a team of paid developers actively working on the support package for this chip for the last 6 years. This chip has been used in the majority of Arduino's new products development during that whole time, and I suspect it will continue to be for some time to come. The community has also been using this architecture for that whole time and so the community support is very good too. The support for ESP32 is reasonably good, but I would say nowhere near to that of the SAMD architecture. This means that any given sketch or library you find on the Internet is more likely to work on the Nano 33 IoT and if you have a problem you are more likely to find an answer if it's about the Nano 33 IoT.

John_Gabriel

ESP 32 dev kit supports Bluetooth 5. Comparing ESP 32 to another is not fair. ESP 32 is all in one! It has BLE, WiFi, GPIOs and amazing features. I dont know much about NANO 33 but ESP 32 supports latets versions of BLuetooth Smart

Bjerknez

ESP 32 dev kit supports Bluetooth 5. Comparing ESP 32 to another is not fair. ESP 32 is all in one! It has BLE, WiFi, GPIOs and amazing features. I dont know much about NANO 33 but ESP 32 supports latets versions of BLuetooth Smart
i'm agreed.

ESP32 is in my eyes a winner. Specially if you need wireless possibilities.

Arduino boards as Nano/Uno etc. is maybe the best choice if we do not need wireless feutures at all. Most regards to the 5V input. I think.

Juraj

Nano 33 IoT is a board in the Arduino SAMD architecture boards package. It is a smaller version of the "MKR 1010 WiFi". Most of the MKR boards have the SAMD MCU and some communication module.
Nano 33 IoT and MKR 1010 boards have WiFi and BLE capability . It is not important how is this implemented. They could use s different WiFi/BLE module then the NINA module based on ESP32. They choose the u-blox NINA but Nano 33 IoT is not "a board with ESP32". It is a SAMD Arduino with WiFi and BLE capability accessible over Arduino libraries.

pert

It is not important how is this implemented. They could use s different WiFi/BLE module then the NINA module based on ESP32.
I disagree. It's important that it has an ESP32 because this is the most "hackable" possible option for the Arduino user. What other WiFi/BLE module has anywhere near that level of support for programming with an Arduino sketch?

Juraj

I disagree. It's important that it has an ESP32 because this is the most "hackable" possible option for the Arduino user. What other WiFi/BLE module has anywhere near that level of support for programming with an Arduino sketch?
I agree. But have you some example of project or some PR to nina-fw using that?

pert

No, and I'll admit there's a good chance I'll never customize my NINA-W102 module's firmware, but I like to have the option available rather than it being a black box that's completely closed to mere mortals like me. Even just having the ability to look at the source code of the firmware on the module is great.

Juraj

No, and I'll admit there's a good chance I'll never customize my NINA-W102 module's firmware, but I like to have the option available rather than it being a black box that's completely closed to mere mortals like me. Even just having the ability to look at the source code of the firmware on the module is great.
sad is, that even Arduino developers didn't finish what they started. there are WIP PRs in nina-fw and library repo not moving forward

Go Up