On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:30:54 -0700, Antoni Lacasta i Sullà wrote:> Hi, > > During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit MCU's, > mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently paying for > 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to benchmark them > with the MCU independent part of my C++ code and surprisingly the > results are quite similar. > > Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this the end > of the 8-bit's? I guess it is.Specific part numbers? Comparing TI Cortex M3 parts to PICs of similar pin counts is still coming down on the side of Microchip, for me (and a PIC will drive a lot more current than an ex-Luminary chip, which can make a difference). -- www.wescottdesign.com
Do you see any future to the 8-bit MCU's?
Started by ●July 21, 2011
Reply by ●July 21, 20112011-07-21
Reply by ●July 21, 20112011-07-21
Also compare power consumption. Renesas just came out with a brandy-spanking-new 8-bit chip family (they call it 16-bit but it's mostly 8-bit operations) specifically to address extreme low power designs.
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
On 21.7.11 9:06 , linnix wrote:> On Jul 21, 9:46 am, Tauno Voipio<tauno.voi...@notused.fi.invalid> > wrote: >> On 21.7.11 6:30 , Antoni Lacasta i Sull� wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit MCU's, mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently paying for 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to benchmark them with the MCU independent part of my C++ code and surprisingly the results are quite similar. >> >>> Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this the end of the 8-bit's? I guess it is. >> >>> Regards, >>> Toni. >> >> I just redesigned an old card using a 8051, an A/D converter, >> a static RAM (2 kilobytes) and some glue logic. The new card >> was done with a Stellaris Cortex, LM3S818. All the IC:s on >> the new card costed together less than the A/D converter >> chip on the old design. >> >> When our current AVR -based designs need to be replaced, the >> Stellaris chips are the potential replacements. >> >> The Stellaris chips run fast with minimal electricity, >> but there is the price of a quite complicated set-up of >> the master and peripheral clocks and port pins. > > Except for the price of the tools. AVR and PIC tools are still much > cheaper. We expect to spend around $1k for the new tools; > unfortunately, the cheap/low cost version won't cut it.Excuse me, I do not quite understand ... The 8051 tools were costly, IAR wit a dongle. For both AVR and the ARMs, I'm using self-generated GNU tools, where the only cost is own work. -- Tauno Voipio
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
On 21/07/2011 21:15, linnix wrote:> On Jul 21, 11:14 am, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:06:23 -0700, linnix wrote: >>> On Jul 21, 9:46 am, Tauno Voipio<tauno.voi...@notused.fi.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> On 21.7.11 6:30 , Antoni Lacasta i Sull� wrote: >> >>>>> Hi, >> >>>>> During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit >>>>> MCU's, mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently >>>>> paying for 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to >>>>> benchmark them with the MCU independent part of my C++ code and >>>>> surprisingly the results are quite similar. >> >>>>> Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this the >>>>> end of the 8-bit's? I guess it is. >> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Toni. >> >>>> I just redesigned an old card using a 8051, an A/D converter, a static >>>> RAM (2 kilobytes) and some glue logic. The new card was done with a >>>> Stellaris Cortex, LM3S818. All the IC:s on the new card costed together >>>> less than the A/D converter chip on the old design. >> >>>> When our current AVR -based designs need to be replaced, the Stellaris >>>> chips are the potential replacements. >> >>>> The Stellaris chips run fast with minimal electricity, but there is the >>>> price of a quite complicated set-up of the master and peripheral clocks >>>> and port pins. >> >>> Except for the price of the tools. AVR and PIC tools are still much >>> cheaper. We expect to spend around $1k for the new tools; >>> unfortunately, the cheap/low cost version won't cut it. >> >> I'm using the gnu-arm tool chain, built from source*. It works fine. > > Does it work for Freescale's Cortex M4 w/ DSP? >Yes.>> >> How much does CodeSourcery want for the 'real' tools? > > Around 1K for most of them. >Actually $150, IIRC, for versions limited to a particular manufacturer (they certainly have a Stellaris-only version, I don't know if they have a Kinetis-only version). Or $400 annually, for the general ARM (including Cortex M4) version. They've got various prices according to the level of support you want and the extra libraries, but none of them will break the bank unless you are looking for the 24-hour support, priority bug-fix, add the features you want, etc., support levels. And you can always go for Freescale Code Worrier. It's not as good a general compiler as gcc, but it is certainly not bad (at least on the PPC where I have used it), and it now comes with a decent Eclipse setup. You can get a free code-limited version which will be fine for many 8-bit to 32-bit upgrades, or pay for bigger versions. There are lots of good reasons to actively choose 8-bit microcontrollers rather than 32-bit ones - but the price of tools is not one of them.>> >> * I'm not saying it was _free_, but I built the tool chain when I was >> between contracts, so it was relatively cheap. >> >> --www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
Dave, maybe you aren't aware of it, but you are starting a new thread everytime you post an answer. This is caused by Google Groups, and AFAIK there are ways to fix it. (Don't know details, however...) Thanks, Tilmann
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
Antoni Lacasta i Sull=E0 wrote:> Hi, >=20 > During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit > MCU's, mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently > paying for 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to > benchmark them with the MCU independent part of my C++ code and > surprisingly the results are quite similar. >=20 > Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this the > end of the 8-bit's? I guess it is.There is an application area for 8-bitters. There are application areas=20 best covered with 32-bitters. There are many applications even for=20 4-bitters. What is the point of your question? Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:54:24 +0200, Tilmann Reh <usenet2007nospam@autometer.de> wrote:>Dave, > >maybe you aren't aware of it, but you are starting a new thread >everytime you post an answer.That may depend on the news reader or, possibly, on the Usenet server one is using. I don't see the new-thread issue occurring with Dave's posts. I agree it's probably a Google Groups side effect, on one end or the other... -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
On Jul 21, 2:24=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:15:19 -0700, linnix wrote: > > On Jul 21, 11:14=A0am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:06:23 -0700, linnix wrote: > >> > On Jul 21, 9:46=A0am, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voi...@notused.fi.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On 21.7.11 6:30 , Antoni Lacasta i Sull=E0 wrote: > > >> >> > Hi, > > >> >> > During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit > >> >> > MCU's, mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently > >> >> > paying for 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to > >> >> > benchmark them with the MCU independent part of my C++ code and > >> >> > surprisingly the results are quite similar. > > >> >> > Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this > >> >> > the end of the 8-bit's? I guess it is. > > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > Toni. > > >> >> I just redesigned an old card using a 8051, an A/D converter, a > >> >> static RAM (2 kilobytes) and some glue logic. The new card was done > >> >> with a Stellaris Cortex, LM3S818. All the IC:s on the new card > >> >> costed together less than the A/D converter chip on the old design. > > >> >> When our current AVR -based designs need to be replaced, the > >> >> Stellaris chips are the potential replacements. > > >> >> The Stellaris chips run fast with minimal electricity, but there is > >> >> the price of a quite complicated set-up of the master and periphera=l> >> >> clocks and port pins. > > >> > Except for the price of the tools. =A0AVR and PIC tools are still mu=ch> >> > cheaper. =A0We expect to spend around $1k for the new tools; > >> > unfortunately, the cheap/low cost version won't cut it. > > >> I'm using the gnu-arm tool chain, built from source*. =A0It works fine=.> > > Does it work for Freescale's Cortex M4 w/ DSP? > > I don't know -- but it took to the Cortex M3 like wildfire. =A0I suspect > that the best you could hope for would be that the 'ordinary' C and C++ > stuff would compile just fine, but anything DSP would have to be done in > assembly, by hand. > > But then, that's the best I've ever gotten out of a 'paid for' tool chain=.> > >> How much does CodeSourcery want for the 'real' tools? > > > Around 1K for most of them. > > Then unless you're facing a period of forced unemployment, just plain > want to learn how to build the tools, or head up a big group and can set > one person to being "the tools guy" it's probably worth it to buy, or to > try out their free tool chain. >Yes, we are going to need DSP. I have fixed gcc and gas before. I can probably hack in the necessary DSP instructions. I still need some kind of JTAG/SWD programmer. Do TI/LMI and NXP programmers work on other chips? If not, i will get the Freescale one. I am still waiting for the customer decision for this. If we buy, we would need at least two licenses. If we build on a virtual server, there is no limit.
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
On Jul 21, 3:28=A0pm, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:> Also compare power consumption. =A0Renesas just came out with a > brandy-spanking-new 8-bit chip family (they call it 16-bit but it's > mostly 8-bit operations) specifically to address extreme low power > designs.Just thinking out loud here. An 8-bit core is obviously (?) going to be better on power consumption than a corresponding 32-bit core. OTOH, an 8-bit core isn't a good fit for most real-world data, nor for addressing, which is why 8-bit code spends a lot of time doing 16-bit work. So is it possible that 16-bits will become the preferred ultra- low-power sweet spot? More energy-per-instruction than an 8-bit, but fewer instructions? I know this flies in the face of "16 is dying, squeezed out by 8 and 32." Like I said, just thinking out loud...
Reply by ●July 22, 20112011-07-22
Hi Toni, On 7/21/2011 8:30 AM, Antoni Lacasta i Sull� wrote:> During the latest months I have been receiving offers for 32-bit MCU's, > mostly based on ARM-Cortex CPU's, at prices I'm currently paying for > 8-bit devices, or even cheaper! This has brought me to benchmark them > with the MCU independent part of my C++ code and surprisingly the > results are quite similar. > > Same price, same flash consumption ... what do yo think? Is this the > end of the 8-bit's? I guess it is.Do you see any future for discrete, small-signal transistors? You can buy a few million for the same price as a single discrete; "same price, same [size]", etc. <grin> I continue to be amazed at how many applications can adequately be addressed with smaller processors (recall Moto's "ICU"?). Low power consumption, small pin count (SOIC8 32b processor?), etc. I lament the loss of really *versatile* counter-timers (imagine having a few 9513's "lying around" :> ) and would much prefer die real-estate being spent on things like that than on a more complex core... I can add a few instruction cycles and bytes of memory to get more complexity from a small processor. But, its awful hard to "emulate" good counter timers in a big fat core :-/
