Will SoC completely replace generalized microcontrollers?

Telenochek wrote:
> 
> I think I need to clarify/modify my original question:
> 
> See, my personal opinion is that if you can find one IC that has all
> the capabilities your system needs (maybe IC with 4 pins is enough or
> maybe 100M reprogrammable gates is just enough, doesn't matter), then
> you are better off selecting that IC rather than combining a bunch of
> ICs on a PCB which combined give you the same capability as the one IC.
> 

I think SoC is a bit like fusion - talked about a lot but not much real
progress.

I gave a series of seminars on SoC about 20 years ago and to be frank there
has been little progress in the directions we anticipated. In practice is
has all been overshadowed by the move from analogue to digital processing.
Die sizes have increased and device packaging has only got worse.

Perhaps the only area where SoC has made any real progress in in really mall
really low cost consumer items where COB is now commonplace.

Ian

In article <1133514258.209403.227380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
interpasha@hotmail.com says...
> Thank you all for your responses!
> There are some really nice things here that I didn't think about
> (like difficulty manufacturing precision analog circuitry, rf
> circuitry, fast memory & etc on the same chip).
> 
> I think I need to clarify/modify my original question:
> 
> See, my personal opinion is that if you can find one IC that has all
> the capabilities your system needs (maybe IC with 4 pins is enough or
> maybe 100M reprogrammable gates is just enough, doesn't matter), then
> you are better off selecting that IC rather than combining a bunch of
> ICs on a PCB which combined give you the same capability as the one IC.
> 
> That's exactly what my definition of a SoC is: one chip has all the
> capabilities for your project.
> So whats the problem with generalized MCUs?
> The problem (as I see it) is that it doesn't matter how large the
> manufacturer product lineup selection is, most projects always require
> something extra that the chips are not going to have. So you get a
> bunch of chips with all the needed capabilities and you place them on
> your PCB, etc etc.
> But in the end (maybe distant future) aren't you much better off having
> all of these chips  combined on a single IC?
> 
> Which is why I was sort of thinking (in my original question) that
> future designers are much more likely to be building specialized ICs
> (SoC) for their projects rather than develop PCBs.
> Again, as I said earlier, if someone is selling a chip that has all the
> capabilities you need, then there is your SoC, you don't need to
> develop a large PCB, or develop your own IC/SoC :)
> 
> Do you guys think that future designers will be transitioning to
> designing custom ICs for their projects rather than PCBs?
>  Or using *highly customizable IC platforms* rather than   develop
> PCBs?

I think a highly customizable IC will always have a higher current
requirement and cost more than two or three simpler ICs.   It will
still be simpler to design the PC board for a 64-pin  LQFP MCU
and another 64 pins of smaller parts that it will be to design a
board for a 208-pin BGA package----even if you are only using
half the pins.

If you put enough logic on the chip to cover 95% of the possible
uses,  I would guess that 95% of the time the designer will be using
only half the logic, but paying for all of it.
> 
> I sort of doubt that it will be FPGAs :
> Since the hardware configuration is stored on board, rather than being
> physically implemented, they are always going to be power hungry
> (unless the gates start consuming 10^(-16) Amps quiescent).
> And if you have a good design (that is out of the prototyping stage)
> with reasonable volume its probably better to have a *hardwired* but
> customizable/flexible chip.
> 
> 

Mark Borgerson

Ian Bell wrote:
> Telenochek wrote:
> 
>>I think I need to clarify/modify my original question:
>>
>>See, my personal opinion is that if you can find one IC that has all
>>the capabilities your system needs (maybe IC with 4 pins is enough or
>>maybe 100M reprogrammable gates is just enough, doesn't matter), then
>>you are better off selecting that IC rather than combining a bunch of
>>ICs on a PCB which combined give you the same capability as the one IC.
>>
> 
> 
> I think SoC is a bit like fusion - talked about a lot but not much real
> progress.

Correct - it's mostly a marketing phantom : and what they claim as
single chip, usually needs others to actually work...
"Oh, - but it's only one chip from _us_, so it is our One-Chip solution "

> 
> I gave a series of seminars on SoC about 20 years ago and to be frank there
> has been little progress in the directions we anticipated. In practice is
> has all been overshadowed by the move from analogue to digital processing.
> Die sizes have increased and device packaging has only got worse.

Even Cell phones, where the biggest impetus for single chip appears, are
stacking die - Q: if it's one package, but >1 die, what do you call it ?

> Perhaps the only area where SoC has made any real progress in in really mall
> really low cost consumer items where COB is now commonplace.

Shouldn't that be called CoS, then :)
[LCDs do call it CoG]

-jg

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:38:28 +1300 in comp.arch.embedded, Jim
Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote:

[...]
>stacking die - Q: if it's one package, but >1 die, what do you call it ?

I've always heard it called MCM.  Though to some that implies a
"mini-pcb" implemented on a ceramic substrate.

Regards,
                                        -=Dave

-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> writes:
> Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> >stacking die - Q: if it's one package, but >1 die, what do you call it ?
> 
> I've always heard it called MCM.  Though to some that implies a
> "mini-pcb" implemented on a ceramic substrate.

The more things change, ...

Didn't connecting the bare die used to be called hybrid
packaging/packages (where "used to be" >= 20 years ago)?

http://www.actel.com/products/fusion/#