Comparing Agilent InfiniiVision 2000 and 3000 X-Series Oscilloscopes

[Electro Fan]

Still trying to figure out the "ideal scope".  It could still be a Rigol - we'll see if they get around to introducing their new Logic Analyzer enabled model(s), but maybe the winner could be an Agilent. 

If it's an Agilent, it's either a 2000 or 3000 but not sure which.

Any comments/corrections/thoughts highly welcomed and appreciated....


Here are some links regarding Agilent's I2C, SPI Serial Embedded option for the 2000 series they call DSOX2EMBD:

http://www.home.agilent.com/en/pd-2252460-pn-DSOX2000-LSS/embedded-serial-triggering-and-analysis-ic-spi-for-infiniivision-2000-x-series-oscilloscopes?cc=US&lc=eng



Here is a link regarding Agilent's I2C, SPI Serial Embedded option for the 3000 series scope they call DSOX3EMBD:

http://www.home.agilent.com/en/pd-1951539-pn-DSOX3EMBD/embedded-serial-triggering-and-analysis-ic-spi-for-infiniivision-3000-x-series-oscilloscopes?nid=-35491.970768.00&cc=US&lc=eng

Does anyone know if these two options (DSOX2EMBD and DSOX3EMBD) are identical, or just similar?

One reason for asking is that on pages 377-396 of the Agilent 3000 manual (User's Guide) there is a section specifically on the DSOX3EMBD, but there is no comparable section in the Agilent 2000 manual (User's Guide).

3000 User's Guide (see pg 377-396):
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/75019-97073.pdf

2000 User's Guide
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/75015-97034.pdf

It appears that the two options (DSOX2EMBD and DSOX3EMBD) both work with the analog channels of each scope (2000 and 3000), ie, in both cases they can work without the MSO options (DSOX2MSO and DSOX3MSO) - Correct?

And the DSO2XEMBD/DSOX3EMBD can work with either 2 channnel or 4 channel analog configurations - Correct?

While the two DSOX"N"EMBD options appear very similar, there are of course some differences between the 2000 series and the 3000 series.  For example, the 2000 (with the DSOX2MSO) only supports 8 digital channels vs. the 16 channels supported by the 3000 (with the DSOX3MSO). This is pretty obvious, but I'm wondering what else might be different that perhaps isn't quite as apparent.

On page 126 of the 3000 Manual there is a reference to the Serial Decode options:  http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/75019-97073.pdf,
but there is no corresponding section in the 2000 Manual:  http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/75015-97034.pdf

Also on Page 126 of the 3000 Manual there is a section on the Lister (which the manual says "is a very powerful tool for investigating large amounts of packet level serial data...").  On page 128 there is a brief section on Searching Lister Data.

Although there is no reference in the 2000 Manual regarding the Lister the above video seems to show that the Lister feature is available on the 2000 series scope (if you have the DSOX2EMBD option):  see video at 2:50.

Another possible difference seems to be in the area of search:  on Page 59-60 in the 3000 manual there is section on Search for Events, but no comparable section seems to be in the 2000 manual.

And of course, there is the difference in wfms/s: 50k on the 2000 vs 1 million on the 3000; 1GSa/s per channel on the 2000 vs 2GSa/s on the 3000 and 100kpts memory depth on the 2000 vs 2Mpts on the 3000; and there are definitely additional triggers on the 3000 vs. the 2000.

Maybe the additional triggers are what causes Agilent to claim superior Search and Navigate features on the 3000?
http://wireless.agilent.com/flash/infiniivision/npl/index1.html
Search and navigate:  2000 No, 3000 Yes   ?

Agilent has done a nice job of providing a graceful/incremental upgrade path within each series but it would be nice to know what features and functions can never be reached by heading down the 2000 path vs. the 3000 path.  The performance and memory trade-offs are relatively easy to see between the 2000 and 3000, but some of the functional feature differences seem a bit more obscure - so any advice from forum members would be much appreciated.

Not to be overly OC, but in an effort to try to make the right investment, below is a Table of Contents list of the features referenced in the 3000 manual that seem to not have a corresponding section in the 2000 manual.  Some of the TOC differences might be just documentation differences, but I think most of them reflect feature/function differences.   (Let me know if you see any errors and I'll fix the list - but with the list and the links to the manuals it should be possible to identify most of the differences between the 2000 and 3000):

Searching for Events 59
To set up searches 59
To copy search setups 60
Divide 77
Math Transforms 78
Differentiate 79
Integrate 80
FFT Measurement 83
Square Root 90
Ax + B 90
Square 91
Absolute Value 92
Common Logarithm 92
Natural Logarithm 93
Exponential 93
Base 10 Exponential 94
Math Filters 94
High Pass and Low Pass Filter 95
Math Visualizations 96
Magnify 96
Measurement Trend 97
Chart Logic Bus Timing 98
Chart Logic Bus State 99
Serial Decode Options 125
Lister 126
Searching Lister Data 128
Edge then Edge Trigger 148
OR Trigger 155
Rise/Fall Time Trigger 157
Nth Edge Burst Trigger 158
Runt Trigger 160
Setup and Hold Trigger 162
To set up Generic video triggers 168
Measurements, Statistics 201
Ratio 227
Counter 229
X at Min Y 233
X at Max Y 234
Count Measurements 234
Positive Pulse Count 234
Negative Pulse Count 235
Rising Edge Count 235
Falling Edges Count 235
Mixed Measurements 235
Area 235
Measurement Thresholds 236
Measurement Window with Zoom Display 238
Measurement Statistics 238
16 Digital Voltmeter (not referenced in the 2000 manual, but I think it's an option on both 2000 and 3000)
- WaveGen functions referenced in 3000 manual, but not in 2000 manual
To edit arbitrary waveforms 261
Creating New Arbitrary Waveforms 262
Editing Existing Arbitrary Waveforms 263
To add noise to the waveform generator output 267
To add modulation to the waveform generator output 267
To set up Amplitude Modulation (AM) 268
To set up Frequency Modulation (FM) 269
To set up Frequency-Shift Keying Modulation (FSK) 271
To save Lister data files 281
To recall arbitrary waveforms 285
Browser-Based Remote Front Panel 320

Long story short if you had to live with a 2000 vs a 3000 what would you miss most from the 3000?

[djghost]

Hi, what I'd miss if I had a 2000x instead of a 3000x :

- extra memory
- extra update rate
- extra bandwidth
- serial decode on the digital channels
- advanced triggering capability
- smartprobe interface (support for active/special probes)

Actually for any of the above reasons I would pick a 3000x over a 2000x.

Those features are nice too :
- arbitrary waveform gen
- navigation
- mask testing

And I miss having a 4000x for the USB serial decode.

Of course all this is a matter of budget. All those scopes are top class

Compared to the rigols :
- more expensive
- not in the same league
- more features come as options (including VGA/LAN)
- less memory but faster

[Electro Fan]

Hi, what I'd miss if I had a 2000x instead of a 3000x :

snip

- serial decode on the digital channels

snip

Isn't serial decode on the digital channels the same for both the 2000 and 3000?  Or how is it different?  Thx

[djghost]

I heard someone saying 2000x can do serial decode only on its 2/4 analog channels, and not on its 8 digital channels.

[Lajon]

I heard someone saying 2000x can do serial decode only on its 2/4 analog channels, and not on its 8 digital channels.

Unfortunately this is true, it is documented in the "Serial Bus Options for InfiniiVision X-Series Oscilloscopes" data sheet where the input sources are listed:

Analog channels 1, 2, 3, or 4
Digital channels D0 to D15 (3000 and 4000 X-Series only)

I guess decoding two way SPI will not be possible with a two channel 2000x.

[Electro Fan]

I heard someone saying 2000x can do serial decode only on its 2/4 analog channels, and not on its 8 digital channels.

Unfortunately this is true, it is documented in the "Serial Bus Options for InfiniiVision X-Series Oscilloscopes" data sheet where the input sources are listed:

Analog channels 1, 2, 3, or 4
Digital channels D0 to D15 (3000 and 4000 X-Series only)

I guess decoding two way SPI will not be possible with a two channel 2000x.

This is correct, 4 channels are recommended/needed for SPI on the 2000X - but that seems like it would be true for any 2 channel scope, not just Agilent, right?

Further, to partially answer my own question at the top of this thread, one of the biggest things that I think would be missed with an Agilent 2000 vs. an Agilent 3000 would be the ability to do any serial decoding or serial triggering on the digital channels.  And apparently if you use the analog channels to do serial decoding then you can't use the digital channels at the same time.  Net, net:  I think on the Agilent 2000 I'd miss the ability to use a serious LA; it's kind of a "partial MSO".  The Agilent 3000 looks great if you have the budget.

The more I look at the popular scopes it looks like the Rigol 2000 series is very strong in the 2 channel space, the Agilent 3000 is looking pretty comfy in it's space, and in between things are shaping up for a battle between the Rigol 4000 series and the Agilent 2000 series; and if Rigol really puts the pedal to the metal with their MSO4000, then the Agilent 3000 might become a little less comfy.

[DaveW]

I guess decoding two way SPI will not be possible with a two channel 2000x.

This is correct, 4 channels are recommended/needed for SPI on the 2000X - but that seems like it would be true for any 2 channel scope, not just Agilent, right?

On the Hameg scopes, you can decode point-point SPI (no select line) using the external trigger as a third input; I presume some of the other scopes can do this as well

[ben_r_]

Man, I love my X-2000 series, but I only bought it because I couldnt afford an X-3000 series and can only drool over an X-4000 series. :/

[Lajon]

I heard someone saying 2000x can do serial decode only on its 2/4 analog channels, and not on its 8 digital channels.

Unfortunately this is true, it is documented in the "Serial Bus Options for InfiniiVision X-Series Oscilloscopes" data sheet where the input sources are listed:

Analog channels 1, 2, 3, or 4
Digital channels D0 to D15 (3000 and 4000 X-Series only)

I guess decoding two way SPI will not be possible with a two channel 2000x.

This is correct, 4 channels are recommended/needed for SPI on the 2000X - but that seems like it would be true for any 2 channel scope, not just Agilent, right?

I meant two way SPI decoding will not be possible on a 2000X even when it is an MSO, this is not exactly what one would expect.

[Electro Fan]

I heard someone saying 2000x can do serial decode only on its 2/4 analog channels, and not on its 8 digital channels.

Unfortunately this is true, it is documented in the "Serial Bus Options for InfiniiVision X-Series Oscilloscopes" data sheet where the input sources are listed:

Analog channels 1, 2, 3, or 4
Digital channels D0 to D15 (3000 and 4000 X-Series only)

I guess decoding two way SPI will not be possible with a two channel 2000x.

This is correct, 4 channels are recommended/needed for SPI on the 2000X - but that seems like it would be true for any 2 channel scope, not just Agilent, right?

I meant two way SPI decoding will not be possible on a 2000X even when it is an MSO, this is not exactly what one would expect.

Right, I agree - it is surprising.  In this case it's kind of like Agilent went about 95-99 miles and didn't finish what should have or could have been a 100 mile race because either they didn't quite see the finish line, or maybe they didn't think it was worth going there, or maybe they didn't quite have a good way to get there.

[Hydrawerk]

Keysight Infinii Vision 2000 and 3000 scopes are 5 years old nowadays. I wonder if there is any new model coming?

[Wuerstchenhund]

3000-A became 3000-T, -T provides larger FFT size and touch screen.

The DSOX3000T is essentially a scaled down DSOX4000A. It has the same basic specs (5Gsa/s sampling, 64k FFT, 4M sample memory) but it also suffers from the same limitations (i.e. tiny sample memory, 64k FFT still pretty poor, small low resolution screen, VGA & LAN expensive options) the other members of the X-Series scopes.

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

I'll take some time in the next day or two with both a 3000T and a 2000A and go through your full list.

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

...and I just saw how old that first post was (2013).  So, I'm not going to break down the whole list right now.  But, if you have any scope related questions feel free to ask.

Key differences between 2000A and 3000T are still:

Bandwidth (70-200 MHz vs 100 MHz to 1 GHz)
Sample rate (2 GSa/s vs 5 GSa/s)
Touch screen standard on 3000T (zone trigger, on screen keyboard, movable windows/tabs etc.)
Memory Depth (2M vs 4M)
Segmented Memory (only on 3000T and up)
Waveform Update Rate (50k vs 1M)
Arbitrary WaveGen w/ built in editor
MSO channel count (8 vs 16)
Serial decode (2000 has I2C, SPI, UART, CAN, LIN; 3000T adds FlexRay MIL-STD1553, ARINC429, I2S, SENT)
Serial decode on digital channels (only for 3000T and up)
Lister
Probing capabilities (use active probes with 3000T and up)
Power analysis application (3000T and up)
Timebase accuracy (25 ppm vs 1.6 ppm)
Measurements (8 extra meas on 3000T and up)
More math (2000 gets "standard" only, get advmath on 3000T)
--link: http://www.keysight.com/en/pd-2020351-pn-DSOX3ADVMATH
Better FFT on 3000T (can do cursor gated, too)
Warranty (5yr on 2000, 3yr on 3000T)

I personally would prefer the 3000T ove rthe 2000 on the merit of the touch screen alone.  It makes navigation and usability skyrocket.
(Bonus article I wrote about touch screens:  http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/ntb/features/feature-articles/21545)

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

And while I'm at it, here's the brief differences between the InfiniiVision 3000T vs 4000X

Bandwidth (100M-1G vs 200M-1.5G)
Touch screen (8.1" vs 12.1")
WaveGen w/ arb (1ch vs dual channel)
WaveGen Vpp max (+-5V vs +-10V_
Serial decode (4000X adds USB 2.0)
Simultaneous measurements on screen (8 vs 10)
Included passive probe (500 MHz vs 700 MHz)
Simultaneous active probe usage (2 at once vs 4 at once)
Math functions (2 vs 4)
Simultaneously displayed math functions (1 + FFT vs only 1)
10 MHz ref in/out (no vs yes)
LAN/VGA (option vs standard)

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

And wow one more: InfiniiVision 4000X vs 6000X.  Might be overkill, but I have my notes out so here goes.

Bandwidth (200M-1.5G vs 1-6 GHz)
Sample Rate (5 GSa/s vs 20 GSa/s)
Noise (using N7020A probe @ 1.5 GHz bandwidth) (3.34 mV vs 1.32 mV)
-at 20 mHz bandwidth (1.13mV vs 880 uV) (wow!)
Waveform update rate (1M vs 500k)
Color Graded Waveforms (no vs yes)
Multi-touch screen on 6000X (pinch & zoom & scroll waveforms!)
Jitter analysis package on 6000X
Counter (5 digit vs optional 10 digit)
Timebase accuracy (10 ppm vs 1.6 ppm)
Simultaneously displayed math functions (1 vs 4)

[nctnico]

...and I just saw how old that first post was (2013).  So, I'm not going to break down the whole list right now.  But, if you have any scope related questions feel free to ask.

Key differences between 2000A and 3000T are still:

Bandwidth (70-200 MHz vs 100 MHz to 1 GHz)
Sample rate (2 GSa/s vs 5 GSa/s)
Touch screen standard on 3000T (zone trigger, on screen keyboard, movable windows/tabs etc.)
Memory Depth (2M vs 4M)

Actually the useable memory depths is only a quarter of what is specified on Keysight oscilloscopes in common usage scenarios. First of all the memory is divided in half because of double buffering and then it is divided in half again when 2 channels in the same group (1&2 or 3&4) are enabled. And it gets less with reference traces on.

[nctnico]

There are other options out there for around the same price which have way more useable memory like Lecroy's Wavesurfer 3000 series. Some already noted that Keysight's ASICs are getting old and they should work on new ones with support for memories to 500Mpts otherwise Keysight will go follow Tektronix' example. You can't milk a cow forever!

edit: typo

[Hydrawerk]

Siglent and Rigol often have better specs, but when it comes to everyday professional usability, many people go for Keysight or Tektronix.

[nctnico]

Siglent and Rigol often have better specs, but when it comes to everyday professional usability, many people go for Keysight or Tektronix.

And for good reason because those better specs are only better on paper!

[Wuerstchenhund]

Siglent and Rigol often have better specs

Actually, most of the time they only offer more sample memory and a lower price, but the baseline specs are often not better (and sometimes even worse) than big brand instruments.

but when it comes to everyday professional usability, many people go for Keysight or Tektronix.

I certainly agree for Keysight but in terms of the big brands Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel these days. They were king of the hills back in the analog scope days but their DSOs have never really been particularly good or advanced (their only real highlight was to come up with a combination of entry-level scope and poorly spec'd spectrum analyzer), plus their service has declined a lot since then. They pretty much live from their reputation from the old times, and these days most of their sales go to traditional buyers that for some reason always bought Tek and never looked at the alternatives, because it's mandated (i.e. by contract or by policy), to people who believe just because they were great 30yrs ago that this must still be the case because the T&M market never changes, or the edu market (where Tek seems to be pretty much giving stuff away).

Tek has still some hold in the (corporate) entry-level scope market but the majority of mid-range and high-end sales go to Keysight and LeCroy, as they have been for lots of years already).

[Lajon]

Key differences between 2000A and 3000T are still:
.
.
.
Segmented Memory (only on 3000T and up)
.
.

2000A supports segmented memory (DSOX2SGM option).
/Lars

[fanOfeeDIY]

And wow one more: InfiniiVision 4000X vs 6000X.  Might be overkill, but I have my notes out so here goes.

Bandwidth (200M-1.5G vs 1-6 GHz)
Sample Rate (5 GSa/s vs 20 GSa/s)
Noise (using N7020A probe @ 1.5 GHz bandwidth) (3.34 mV vs 1.32 mV)
-at 20 mHz bandwidth (1.13mV vs 880 uV) (wow!)
Waveform update rate (1M vs 500k)
Color Graded Waveforms (no vs yes)
Multi-touch screen on 6000X (pinch & zoom & scroll waveforms!)
Jitter analysis package on 6000X
Counter (5 digit vs optional 10 digit)
Timebase accuracy (10 ppm vs 1.6 ppm)
Simultaneously displayed math functions (1 vs 4)

Thank you for the list.

I added InfiniiVision 6000X to the Digital Oscilloscope Chart.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/digital-oscilloscope-comparison-chart/

[ECEdesign]

I go back and forth on which scope to get.  DS1054Z sure is cheap and good on paper but I hear more and more complaints about them being noisy and hard to use.  I have been considering a used Agilent 2 channel 2000 series scope.  Of course everyone has their opinon but it sounds like I would be much more happy down the road with the Agilent

[Wuerstchenhund]

I go back and forth on which scope to get.  DS1054Z sure is cheap and good on paper but I hear more and more complaints about them being noisy and hard to use.  I have been considering a used Agilent 2 channel 2000 series scope.  Of course everyone has their opinon but it sounds like I would be much more happy down the road with the Agilent

Probably, but at the end of the day it depends on what exactly you plan to do and your budget.

Since you're considering used, have a look at the R&S RTM1054. At the moment there's a seller on ebay that sells them for roughly the same price as a 2Ch 200MHz DSOX2k would roughly go for.