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.
When will the 8051 and othe 8-bits go away?
Started by ●July 1, 2005
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
On 2005-07-01, Paul Marciano <pm940@yahoo.com> wrote:> 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.All those advances that make the 32-bit parts cheaper and lower power are also making the 8-bit parts cheaper and lower power. 8-bit parts are always going to be cheaper and lower power than 32-bit parts. 4-bit parts are always going to be cheaper than 8-bit parts.> 1. For NEW DESIGNS ONLY, can you guess at how much life (years, > decades) is left in 8-bit devices?I'd guess at least 10 or 20 years. Sales volume of 8-bit parts just passed 4-bit parts a couple years ago.> 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?Why would they? 4-bit parts are still sold in huge volumes. They're not going away either.> 3. Do you think there is value (to embedded engineers) in > settling on a single ISA for microcontrollers, such as ARM?No.> 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.Even if in meant having to pay more for something and have the batteries last half as long? If you owned the company and putting an 8-bit part in a product could increase your profits by a million dollars, what you you do? -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I once decorated my at apartment entirely in ten visi.com foot salad forks!!
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
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.Never. 16 bits is overkill for a talking barbie, keyboard controller, toaster, mouse, or low-end calculator. The only reason more toys aren't using 4-bit processors is because so much of the die is taken up by bonding pads that there is no cost savings to be had.>...will end up in the smallest 8-pin(?) microcontrollers...Pins? We don't need no steenking pins! Pry open a toy or a calculator and try to find the uC pins. :)>3. Do you think there is value (to embedded engineers) in >settling on a single ISA for microcontrollers, such as ARM?Not as long as there is a tenth of a penny to be saved by using a less capable part. That's a thousand dollars per million units.
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
Grant Edwards wrote:>All those advances that make the 32-bit parts cheaper and lower >power are also making the 8-bit parts cheaper and lower power. >8-bit parts are always going to be cheaper and lower power than >32-bit parts. 4-bit parts are always going to be cheaper than >8-bit parts.Not really. We have reached the point where the die size is the same, because the bonding pads dominate.>4-bit parts are still sold in huge volumes.Less than 5% of the market compared to 8-bits having 30-40%. http://www.techonline.com/community/ed_resource/feature_article/36930 The place where 4-bit processors are still king is at the very low power end - watches. They want that tiny battery to run the device 27/7 for many years, and fewer transistors still means lower power. I don't see that ever changing.
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
On 2005-07-01, Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:>>All those advances that make the 32-bit parts cheaper and lower >>power are also making the 8-bit parts cheaper and lower power. >>8-bit parts are always going to be cheaper and lower power than >>32-bit parts. 4-bit parts are always going to be cheaper than >>8-bit parts. > > Not really. We have reached the point where the die size > is the same, because the bonding pads dominate.Yes, I should have thought about that. Below a certain die size (for the active circuitry) the packaging cost dominates.>>4-bit parts are still sold in huge volumes. > > Less than 5% of the market compared to 8-bits having 30-40%. > http://www.techonline.com/community/ed_resource/feature_article/36930That has changed a lot. The last time I looked 8-bits were only slightly ahead. That probably was a couple years back...> The place where 4-bit processors are still king is at the very low > power end - watches. They want that tiny battery to run the device > 27/7 for many years, and fewer transistors still means lower power. > I don't see that ever changing.Yup. Somebody recently told me that Swatch does their own uP designs now. Current draws down in the 10s of uA. Not sure what the clock rate is. Once upon a time 32KHz was common for watch stuff. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Quick, sing me the at BUDAPEST NATIONAL ANTHEM!! visi.com
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
My predictions: 4-bits will only be used for extreme low power. 8-bits will never go away. Perfect for toys, keyboards, etc. 16-bits will not exist by the year 2020. 32-bits will be here forever. Great size for demanding embedded apps. 64-bits will not exist by the year 2040. 128-bits will not exist by the year 2060. 256-bits will become the top-end. 512-bits and higher will never happen. Further development will be in the direction of massive parallel processing on one die, followed by (unless it turns out to be impossible) quantum computers. 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.
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
Guy Macon wrote:> Less than 5% of the market compared to 8-bits having 30-40%. > http://www.techonline.com/community/ed_resource/feature_article/36930Thanks for the article pointer, Guy. Very interesting. Followup question: Assuming the 8051 is the dominant 8-bit microcontroller for NEW DESIGNS(*), do you think it will continue to be, or is there a new rising star? * If my assumption is wrong s/8051/dominant_mcu/ Cheers, Paul.
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
Guy Macon wrote:> My predictions: > > 4-bits will only be used for extreme low power. > 8-bits will never go away. Perfect for toys, keyboards, etc.I agree with those two statements.> 16-bits will not exist by the year 2020.I think that 16 bit will be a small segment of the market but still worthwhile pursuing for some manufacturers. It may just be that the cores will be soft ones as part of a device with integral I/O or as part of an FPGA.> 32-bits will be here forever. Great size for demanding embedded apps.I agree with that statement.> 64-bits will not exist by the year 2040. > 128-bits will not exist by the year 2060.This may be a bit on the early side. However, they will prove too big for most embedded applications and will only find a home in bigger processing solutions for a while.> 256-bits will become the top-end. > 512-bits and higher will never happen. Further development will be > in the direction of massive parallel processing on one die, followed > by (unless it turns out to be impossible) quantum computers.I do not think that any bigger than 128 bit will gain any sort of a foothold for very long. I see the highest end becoming a much more multiply parallel architecture to deal with really huge applications (MPP on a big scale). These are likely to use mostly the 32 bit processors at ever increasing processing speeds. We may find that the highest end processing starts to move over to different technology (optical computing perhaps). In that sector I suppose that 32 bit wide optical busses will be all that they desire to handle. Just an opinion for what it is worth. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/ ********************************************************************
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
On 2005-07-01, Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:> I don't see 16 bits surviving. It will be squeezed out by 8 > and 32.I think that's already pretty visible. Most of the traffic around here is about either 8 bit (PIC,AVR,8051) or 32-bit (ARM,PPC,SH,H8S) parts. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! LOOK!!! I'm WALKING at in my SLEEP again!! visi.com
Reply by ●July 1, 20052005-07-01
Guy Macon wrote:> My predictions: > 64-bits will not exist by the year 2040. > 128-bits will not exist by the year 2060. > 256-bits will become the top-end. > 512-bits and higher will never happen. Further development will be > in the direction of massive parallel processing on one die, followed > by (unless it turns out to be impossible) quantum computers. > > 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.The move to 64-bits is mostly due to the 4GB address limit on 32-bit machines that is a real barrier for large systems like database servers. 64-bits provides for 16EB of directly addressable memory. Assuming RAMs double in capacity every 18 months it will take 48 years to build systems that hit the 16EB limit. That assumes it's even possible for the RAMs to continue to evolve that far. I think 64-bits will be with us for 100 years if not longer. The trend now is for parallelism over speed. Disk drives are still the speed-bump for all high performance computing. Not even Microsoft can drive demand more than 16EB. Cheers, Paul.
