>On Friday, in article <11cb9a2eeej5bca@corp.supernews.com>
> _see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_ "Guy Macon" wrote:
>>I don't see 16 bits surviving. It will be squeezed out by 8 and 32.
>>I don't see 64 or 128 bits surviving. They will be squeezed out by
>>32 and 256.
>
>For the majority of embedded systems (standalone SMALL boxes not 'PC')
>I don't see 256 for a long time yet due to the number of interconnects,
>unless the system RAM and CPU are on one die and smaller bus exist
>externally (Transputer).
From the architectural point of view integrating the processor and the
RAM on the same chip would make a lot of sense (but those working with
the actual silicon processing might disagree :-).
Think about a typical RAM structure (at least dynamic RAM), in which
the row address is decoded first and all cells in the row are
activated, feeding the result from each cell to the corresponding
column wire and into the sense amplifiers. When the column address is
decoded, it selects one of the columns for output.
All the data from a single row is available on the column lines and
needs to be squeeze out from the limited number of pins by selecting
the corresponding column wire with the column address.
A 8 MiB (64 Mibit) memory might be arranged as an 8192 x 8192 array.
After one of the 8192 rows are selected, data from 8192 columns would
be available at once (1024 bytes). It would be very nice, if all this
could be loaded into a cache page as a single memory cycle. While 8192
parallel lines would consume a lot of space on the chip, it would
still be a lot more efficient than a package with more than 8000 pins
and high power amplifiers to drive each external line :-).
This would eliminate the DRAM column decoder and the delays associated
with it. The cache address decoding could also be simplified, since
only a word select would be required.
With 50 ns DRAM cycle time, this would correspond to 20 GB/s or 160
Gbit/s transfer rate.
Paul
Reply by Grant Edwards●July 14, 20052005-07-14
On 2005-07-14, Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why I'd want to use a 32 bit processor to
>>>run a toaster or a TV remote?
>>
>> To handle the Web Server needed for the Web Browser based interface :)
>
> Besides with a 32 bit processor you can get by without the
> resistance for the toaster;)
Might as well use those Watts for something as they're being
turned into heat...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! By MEER biz doo
at SCHOIN...
visi.com
Reply by Lanarcam●July 14, 20052005-07-14
Anton Erasmus wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2005 17:10:50 -0700, dkelvey@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Hi
> > I'm not sure why I'd want to use a 32 bit processor to
> >run a toaster or a TV remote?
>
> To handle the Web Server needed for the Web Browser based interface :)
Besides with a 32 bit processor you can get by without
the resistance for the toaster;)
Reply by Anton Erasmus●July 14, 20052005-07-14
On 13 Jul 2005 17:10:50 -0700, dkelvey@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hi
> I'm not sure why I'd want to use a 32 bit processor to
>run a toaster or a TV remote?
To handle the Web Server needed for the Web Browser based interface :)
[Rest snipped]
Regards
Anton Erasmus
Reply by ●July 13, 20052005-07-13
Hi
I'm not sure why I'd want to use a 32 bit processor to
run a toaster or a TV remote?
Dwight
Paul Marciano wrote:
> This is a bit dumb, but let's discuss it anyway.
>
> The 8051 and other 8-bit microcontrollers have had a long and
> distinguished life so far. As more and more low power devices appear
> using 32-bit instruction sets such as ARM, I wonder how long it will be
> before 8-bits are no longer selected for new designs.
>
>
> Some fun questions for a Friday:
>
> 1. For NEW DESIGNS ONLY, can you guess at how much life (years,
> decades) is left in 8-bit devices?
>
> 2. Given microcontroller size/power evolution, do you think
> ARM/AVR/other will end up in the smallest 8-pin(?) microcontrollers and
> 8-bit micros will just fade away? If so, in what time frame?
>
> 3. Do you think there is value (to embedded engineers) in settling on a
> single ISA for microcontrollers, such as ARM?
>
>
> I like ARM and I also like 8051, PIC and other 8-bits, but ARM is so
> easy to work with (both in 'C' and assembly) that I wouldn't be sorry
> if the 8-bits were retired.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul.
>On 11 Jul 2005 16:08:19 -0700, the renowned Eric Smith
><eric@brouhaha.com> wrote:
>
>>Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> 1) There were availability issues with the 68000. IIRC, it
>>> wasn't going to be available in production quantities in
>>> time to meet Boca's schedule.
>>
>>I've heard this before, but I'm skeptical. IBM wasn't actually
>>expecting the PC to sell very many units, and Motorola was shipping
>>the 68000 in volume by then, so I don't think there actually would
>>have been any issue.
>>
>>Of course, the reality is that the PC sold much better than expected,
>>so use of the 68000 could very well have run into supply problems.
>>
>>But it seems much more likely that the decision was based on cost.
>>An 8088 with the various support components (both Intel 8xxx chips
>>and TTL) was much less expensive than a 68000 with the components
>>it would have required.
>
>They could also have chosen the superior, but more expensive
>system-wise, 8086 with its 16-bit bus, but chose not to. It was out
>well before the 8088.
This reminds me of a series of ads run by AMD, where they showed 2
guys standing on boxes presenting the Z8000 and 8086.
As the ad campaign went on, more and more people moved from the 8086
guy to the Z8000 guy.
The slogan was: The Z8000 is better!
Not long after this AMD began to second source the 8086.
At a seminar I attended a sales rep was asked about this.
His answer was: The Z8000 is still better, but the 8086 sells better.
Tom
Reply by Spehro Pefhany●July 11, 20052005-07-11
On 11 Jul 2005 16:08:19 -0700, the renowned Eric Smith
<eric@brouhaha.com> wrote:
>Grant Edwards wrote:
>> 1) There were availability issues with the 68000. IIRC, it
>> wasn't going to be available in production quantities in
>> time to meet Boca's schedule.
>
>I've heard this before, but I'm skeptical. IBM wasn't actually
>expecting the PC to sell very many units, and Motorola was shipping
>the 68000 in volume by then, so I don't think there actually would
>have been any issue.
>
>Of course, the reality is that the PC sold much better than expected,
>so use of the 68000 could very well have run into supply problems.
>
>But it seems much more likely that the decision was based on cost.
>An 8088 with the various support components (both Intel 8xxx chips
>and TTL) was much less expensive than a 68000 with the components
>it would have required.
They could also have chosen the superior, but more expensive
system-wise, 8086 with its 16-bit bus, but chose not to. It was out
well before the 8088.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Reply by Grant Edwards●July 11, 20052005-07-11
On 2005-07-11, Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> 1) There were availability issues with the 68000. IIRC, it
>> wasn't going to be available in production quantities in
>> time to meet Boca's schedule.
>
> I've heard this before, but I'm skeptical. IBM wasn't actually
> expecting the PC to sell very many units, and Motorola was shipping
> the 68000 in volume by then, so I don't think there actually would
> have been any issue.
The way I remember it, the problem was that IBM had decided on
an 8-bit bus, and while the 16-bit bus 68000 was shipping, the
68008 wasn't.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Used staples are good
at with SOY SAUCE!
visi.com
Reply by ●July 11, 20052005-07-11
Grant Edwards wrote:
> 1) There were availability issues with the 68000. IIRC, it
> wasn't going to be available in production quantities in
> time to meet Boca's schedule.
I've heard this before, but I'm skeptical. IBM wasn't actually
expecting the PC to sell very many units, and Motorola was shipping
the 68000 in volume by then, so I don't think there actually would
have been any issue.
Of course, the reality is that the PC sold much better than expected,
so use of the 68000 could very well have run into supply problems.
But it seems much more likely that the decision was based on cost.
An 8088 with the various support components (both Intel 8xxx chips
and TTL) was much less expensive than a 68000 with the components
it would have required.
Reply by Everett M. Greene●July 10, 20052005-07-10
"steven" <steven_somenumber@telenet.be> writes:
> "Paul E. Bennett" <peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > Systems I was developing in that period of time used the 6809/6309
> > processors. I did have a 68000 to play with but never needed the
> > power in the applications I was dealing with at the time.
>
> Ah, the 6809! Most beautiful CISC uP ever! and OS-9 was far better than DOS
> too. I remember a column in BYTE, around '86 IIRC, where the columnist
> (Pournelle?) compared DOS to OS-9 as Sylvester Stallone compared to Robert
> De Niro. I've always liked that one.
> Pity that Microware just let the 8-bit OS-9 die. Why didn't they make it
> public domain, like TurboPower, who donated their prize-winning Delphi
> collections to SourceForge?
>
> BTW, if an 8088 is called a 16-bit controller, then the 6809 is one too!
> I recall Motorola had a 6829 paged MMU which extended the memory map to 2MB,
> had 4 task mappings and could be cascaded to 8 devices, for 32 tasks. A real
> beauty, at least on paper, because I've never seen a design withe the
> 6809/6829.
I've never seen any evidence that the 6829 ever made
it to real silicon.
> An aside: does any1 know if the complete Radio Shack Color Computer has been
> recreated in an FPGA?