7

I understand that Microchip has In-Circuit debuggers (ICD) which gives insight into a running PIC (or dsPIC for that matter) in real time. Then we have the ICE which goes a step ahead by replacing the microcontroller within the board and emulate it. The ICE gives full view of what would be happening inside the PIC had there been a real microcontroller on that board there.

Microchip also has something called the PICKit. It can be used to program a PIC. Can it also be used to replace the ICD? I am specifically referring to PICKit 3.

For Easy PIC PRO v7 here is a section for "Programming with ICD2/ICD3". Can the PICKit be used instead or shall I have to buy an ICD?

nidhin
  • 8,197
  • 3
  • 28
  • 46
quantum231
  • 11,218
  • 24
  • 99
  • 192

3 Answers3

11

There is a nice comparison between the PICKit 3, ICD 3, and Real ICE here.

The big difference between the PICkit 3 and ICD 3 is speed -- the PICKit run at USB 1.1/Full Speed (12 Mbs), and the ICD runs at USB 2.0/High Speed (480 Mbs) as does the Real ICE. This really does make a difference.

Otherwise, the PICKit and ICD are similar in features, except the ICD allows for more complex breakpoints, including software breakpoints.

The main difference between the ICD 3 and the Real ICE is that the latter uses the trace capability (like JTAG) built into chips like the PIC32 series. The Real ICE does not replace the microcontroller on the board with one inside the Real ICE (although the name seems to imply that).

The chart says the PICKit is not suitable for production programming, whereas the ICD and Real ICE are. I'm not quite sure what they mean by that, except perhaps the interface to the board is more failure proof. The interface for the Real ICE is on its own little daughterboard, so if you blow the output circuitry, you only have to replace that piece.

I strongly suggest you get an ICD 3 if you can afford it.

tcrosley
  • 47,708
  • 5
  • 97
  • 161
  • According to http://www.tag-connect.com :"The ICSP signals supplied by PICkit 3 do not have the same drive strength as Microchip's ICD 3 and REAL ICE debuggers .... We recommend choosing the ICD 3 or similar over PICkit 3 in order to avoid noise related connection problems." – Jeanne Pindar Mar 11 '15 at 12:16
  • "Product programming" is actually "production programming", which implies a more robust algorithm. That implies the ability to program a large quantity of boards without the risk of errors or subsequent failures due to "weak bits" in the programmed image. – gbarry Mar 12 '15 at 08:49
  • 1
    @gbarry -- thanks for spotting that, production is of course what I mean. Will fix it. – tcrosley Mar 12 '15 at 08:51
  • 1
    I found a note I made after I first got an ICD3. "Now it may be possible to actually wear out the program memory." A remark about its speed. – gbarry Mar 13 '15 at 18:49
  • @gbarry I've got a PICkit 3, LCD 3, and a Real ICE. Unless you need the trace features of the Real ICE, the ICD 3 is just as good. Best choice for most people. – tcrosley Mar 13 '15 at 19:36
5

The main differences between ICD4 and PICKit 4 are as follows:

o Power to Target: ICD4 can provide up to 1A, whereas the PICkit4 can only provide 50 mA.

o Breakpoints: ICD 4 supports complex breakpoints, while as the PICkit 4 only supports simple breakpoints.

o Over Voltage / Current Protection: In the ICD4 the Over Voltage / Current Protection is implemented in the Hardware, while as in the PICkit 4 it is implemented in the Software.

o SDCard: PICkit4 has an SD Card slot for storing programming images for Programmer to Go. It's not fully implemented yet, but will be in the near future.

enter image description here

References:

• microchipdeveloper.com/icd4:start

• microchip.com/icd4

• microchipdeveloper.com/pickit4:start

• microchip.com/pickit4

Cyclops
  • 61
  • 1
  • 3
3

Reviving an old thread since PicKit 4 has came out. PicKit 4 is much faster the PicKit 3 so ICD is not needed anymore if all you wanted is speed.

Also PicKit 4 will soon allow you to put your HEX on a micro SD card to program on the go far from the computer.

Jonathan Corriveau
  • 131
  • 2