When will the 8051 and othe 8-bits go away?

Shortly after :

     Teletypes
     Card Punches
     Paper Tape
     Dumb Terminals
     Wooden Pencils

gm

Paul Marciano wrote:

> 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/36930
> 
> 
> Thanks for the article pointer, Guy. Very interesting.

Note this pie was revenue, not units.
On Units, the 8 bit is way out in front.
4 bits is relatively stable at ~ 1B/yr
32 bit units is growing faster than 8 bit, but 8 bit
is still a long way from any plateau.

> 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/

There is no dominant uC, like there is a dominant PC CPU device.

That's why marketdroids in 3 different companies claim to be #1 :)

They also use their own yardsticks - eg bundling non-binary compatible 
cores into one basket [helps get the numbers up...]

80c51 is easily, and by far, the most sourced core.

It was/is optimised for single-chip embedded control, and so is not
going away any time soon. Things like interrupt priority, atomic boolean
opcodes, register back switching, direct memory opcodes, all factor in this.
  As an 8 bit opcode device, it also has an opcode ceiling, so for 
larger-data tasks, something else could be a better choice.

If you want to look at the device space above ~44 pins, and above ~64K,
then yes, there is a growing standard device there, called ARM.

One key driver: it is also multi-sourced.

-jg

Hello Paul,

I'll second the others who said they are here to stay.

With respect to the 8051 family: AFAIK that is the only family where at 
least the simpler versions are second sourced. That is a huge advantage 
and this fact alone almost guarantees a long product life. It is also 
one reason why I used the 51 in some designs where clients needed to be 
able to build them for more than a decade.

Some stuff will simply keep going. Not just in the uC world. There are 
airplanes in daily use which are powered by 70 year old engine designs.

How many times has the CD4000 series been declared to be near death? I 
still design with these, new packages were offered, prices are low, 
everything is well with them.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Guy Macon wrote:
> Paul Marciano wrote:
> 
>> 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 that being able to have an instruction that has two 64-bit
> source addresses and one 64-bit destination address embedded in it
> will eventually drive the extreme high end to 256 bit instructions
> and a 64-bit address space.  I also see the current trend found
> in MMX/SSE driving future processors towards 256 bits; a SIMD
> extension that deals with horizontal and vertical adjacent pixels
> in 32-bit color is likely to need more than 128 bits.

Power conservation is necessary, especially in small battery
operated devices.  Every gate changing state (in CMOS logic) is
pumping capacitor charging current from Vcc to gnd.  Doubling the
address width at least doubles the power consumption for that
buss.  It also adds to the expensive pin count.

So I see no point to wide addresses where the application does not
require them.  A large proportion of the embedded systems in the
world are quite happy with an 8 bit (or smaller) address buss. 
Proper use of high level languages insulates much software from
nasty hardware considerations.  The governing factor will be cost.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

"Paul Marciano" <pm940@yahoo.com> writes:
> 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.

The above is the important point -- address space size vs. data
size.  64-bit data operations don't help your word processor
very much (if at all).

> Not even Microsoft can drive demand more than 16EB.

Give them a chance.  The next release of Windows will probably
require at least 16 TBytes of memory just to boot!

Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in 
news:11cb9a2eeej5bca@corp.supernews.com:

>   8-bits will never go away.  Perfect for toys, keyboards, etc.
>  16-bits will not exist by the year 2020.

8 bit controllers have so many 16 bit functions that they should be 
considered as 16 bit ones. There are no true 8 bit controllers out 
there. Compare the AVR (marketed as 8 bit controller) with the MSP430 
(a true 16 bitter). No much difference in performance and needed code 
space. 

The 8051 is (and will be) popular as subcontroller in special function 
IC's. E.g. Nordic 24E1 a 2.4GHz tranceiver with integrated 8051.
The 24bit-ADC's from TI, Analog Devices and so on....
8 bit controllers will never be out of market. 

M.
-- 
Bitte auf mwnews2@pentax.boerde.de antworten.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
>>Not even Microsoft can drive demand more than 16EB.

> Give them a chance.  The next release of Windows will probably
> require at least 16 TBytes of memory just to boot!

It seems like only yesterday when Bill Gates said: "Who would ever want more 
than 640K?"

:-)
Don...


-- 
Don McKenzie
E-Mail Contact Page:       http://www.e-dotcom.com/ecp.php?un=Dontronics

RS-232 to VGA. Many resolutions http://www.dontronics.com/micro-vga.html
USB to RS232 Converter that works http://www.dontronics.com/usb_232.html

"Everett M. Greene" <mojaveg@mojaveg.iwvisp.com> wrote in message 
news:20050702.7A46EF0.112C4@mojaveg.iwvisp.com...
> "Paul Marciano" <pm940@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> The above is the important point -- address space size vs. data
> size.  64-bit data operations don't help your word processor
> very much (if at all).
>
>> Not even Microsoft can drive demand more than 16EB.
>
> Give them a chance.  The next release of Windows will probably
> require at least 16 TBytes of memory just to boot!

No just a 3d card with min of 32MB but recommended to have 128MB or 
higher(same as OS X)
1GB graphics cards are just around the corner.

Possibility that next version of windows may require a 64bit processor.

Alex 

"Grant Edwards" <grante@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11cb7l3236bho0e@corp.supernews.com...
> 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/36930
>
> That 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.

10s of uA? A few years back I made a design which included an MSP430 micro
(IIRC Flash needs more power than mask programmed), a voltage regulator (PS
was 9V), a reset controller and some chicken feed (pullups!) and it consumed
less than 5 uA. Running from a 32kHz crystal, always in active mode.
32KHz are still typical for watches. They're small and they're cheap.

Steven

On Monday, in article <3irqodFmilanU2@individual.net>
     news@alxx.net "Alex Gibson" wrote:

>"Everett M. Greene" <mojaveg@mojaveg.iwvisp.com> wrote in message 
>news:20050702.7A46EF0.112C4@mojaveg.iwvisp.com...
>> "Paul Marciano" <pm940@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 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.
...
>>> Not even Microsoft can drive demand more than 16EB.
>>
>> Give them a chance.  The next release of Windows will probably
>> require at least 16 TBytes of memory just to boot!
>
>No just a 3d card with min of 32MB but recommended to have 128MB or 
>higher(same as OS X)
>1GB graphics cards are just around the corner.
>
>Possibility that next version of windows may require a 64bit processor.

Hmmm... reminds of something I put on my website in 1996 from a posting
in 1995 to a very different newsgroup....

        <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fun.htm>

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>              GNU H8 & mailing list info
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>             For those web sites you hate