Raspberry Pi Pico vs Arduino Nano
When embarking on a new electronics or programming project, two of the most popular microcontroller boards that come to mind are the Raspberry Pi Pico and the Arduino Nano. Both are excellent choices for hobbyists, educators, and engineers alike. However, each board has its own set of strengths and weaknesses that make them more suitable for different types of projects. In this article, we’ll dive deep into a detailed comparison of the Raspberry Pi Pico and the Arduino Nano, outlining their pros and cons to help you make an informed decision on which is best for your next project.
Overview
Raspberry Pi Pico:
The Raspberry Pi Pico is the Raspberry Pi Foundation’s first foray into microcontrollers, launched in January 2021. It’s based on the RP2040 chip, a dual-core ARM Cortex-M0+ processor running at 133 MHz. The Pico offers a powerful, low-cost microcontroller board for users who want to get into embedded systems and microcontroller-based programming.
Arduino Nano:
The Arduino Nano is one of the most popular microcontroller boards in the Arduino ecosystem, based on the ATmega328P microcontroller. It has been around for many years and is widely supported by a large community. Operating at 16 MHz, the Nano is designed for small and compact projects requiring a flexible I/O interface.
Key Specifications
| Feature | Raspberry Pi Pico | Arduino Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Microcontroller | RP2040 (Dual-core ARM Cortex-M0+) | ATmega328P (8-bit AVR) |
| Processor Speed | 133 MHz | 16 MHz |
| RAM | 264 KB | 2 KB |
| Flash Memory | 2 MB (on-board) | 32 KB (28 KB usable) |
| GPIO Pins | 26 (3.3V logic) | 14 (5V logic) |
| Analog Inputs | 3 (12-bit ADC) | 8 (10-bit ADC) |
| USB Interface | Micro-USB | Mini-USB |
| Price | ~$4 | ~$3 |
Pros and Cons
Raspberry Pi Pico
Pros:
- Processing Power: The RP2040 microcontroller in the Pico is much more powerful than the ATmega328P in the Nano, featuring dual ARM Cortex-M0+ cores at 133 MHz. This makes it much better suited for computationally intense applications.
- Memory: The Pico has 264 KB of RAM, compared to the Arduino Nano’s 2 KB. This is a significant advantage for projects requiring more memory, such as handling large data sets or running complex algorithms.
- Flash Storage: The 2 MB of onboard flash memory in the Pico provides ample space for storing code and large data.
- Low Price: The Pico is highly affordable for the power it provides, typically priced around $4, which is a significant advantage for budget-conscious hobbyists and makers.
- Flexible I/O: It comes with 26 GPIO pins (more than the Nano), including I2C, SPI, UART, PWM, and analog inputs, making it ideal for a wide range of projects.
- Power Efficiency: The ARM Cortex-M0+ architecture is efficient, meaning the Pico is more power-efficient than the Arduino Nano for most applications.
Cons:
- 3.3V Logic: The Pico operates at 3.3V logic, which might be a problem for interfacing with some 5V-based peripherals, such as older sensors or devices that are specifically designed for 5V logic.
- Limited Software Support (Compared to Arduino Ecosystem): While the Raspberry Pi Pico is supported by a growing number of libraries, the Arduino platform is still more mature and offers an extensive set of libraries and examples, especially for beginners.
- No Native Networking: The Pico does not have built-in Wi-Fi or Ethernet, so it is less suited for IoT projects unless additional components (such as external Wi-Fi modules) are added.
Arduino Nano
Pros:
- Ease of Use: Arduino’s software environment (IDE) is very beginner-friendly, with a vast collection of libraries and an enormous community for support. It’s a go-to for people just starting with microcontrollers.
- 5V Logic: The Arduino Nano operates at 5V logic, which makes it easier to interface with many common sensors and modules designed for 5V operation.
- Mature Ecosystem: The Arduino platform has been around for many years, meaning there’s an abundance of tutorials, example code, and accessories available for nearly any project.
- Compact Size: The Nano is a small, compact board that’s perfect for projects where space is tight. It fits easily into breadboards and has a relatively low profile.
- USB Interface: The Nano uses a mini-USB interface, which is standard for many devices and cables.
Cons:
- Limited Processing Power: The ATmega328P microcontroller is much slower, with a clock speed of 16 MHz, which is quite limiting when compared to the Pico’s ARM Cortex-M0+ processor at 133 MHz. This makes it less suitable for computationally intensive applications.
- Limited RAM and Flash: The Arduino Nano has only 2 KB of RAM and 32 KB of flash memory, which can quickly be consumed when handling larger programs or data.
- Fewer GPIO Pins: The Arduino Nano only has 14 GPIO pins (with 6 PWM pins), which could be a limitation in more complex projects requiring more I/O options.
- Lower Precision ADC: The 10-bit ADC on the Nano might not provide the precision needed for certain high-accuracy sensor applications. The Pico’s 12-bit ADC provides better precision.
Which One Should You Choose?
The Raspberry Pi Pico is the clear choice if you need:
- More processing power.
- More memory.
- Better precision in analog inputs (12-bit ADC).
- More GPIO pins for interfacing with sensors, displays, or other peripherals.
- Low-cost solutions for complex projects.
The Arduino Nano is ideal if:
- You are working with 5V logic devices or peripherals.
- You’re a beginner or someone who values the ease of use of the Arduino IDE.
- You are building simpler projects or need a compact form factor.
- You need a board with better software and community support due to its maturity.
Conclusion
Both the Raspberry Pi Pico and Arduino Nano are excellent boards, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. The Pico shines in processing power, memory, and flexibility, making it a great choice for more advanced or performance-demanding projects. The Arduino Nano, on the other hand, excels in simplicity, ease of use, and community support, making it a fantastic board for beginners and straightforward applications.
Your decision should ultimately depend on the specific needs of your project—whether you prioritize performance, ease of use, or hardware compatibility.