>> >> Single clock C51 FLASH variants hit 33MHz, 35MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz, 100MHz >> from various vendors - rather faster than the AVR. >> >> So, why bother ?Rehashed 8051 is a bit like your grandmother trying on a bikini. Not a pretty site. AVR was designed from the ground up to be a modern processor.
Moving from 8051 to AVR
Started by ●February 5, 2006
Reply by ●February 7, 20062006-02-07
Reply by ●February 7, 20062006-02-07
diggerdo wrote:> >> > >> Single clock C51 FLASH variants hit 33MHz, 35MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz, 100MHz > >> from various vendors - rather faster than the AVR. > >> > >> So, why bother ? > > Rehashed 8051 is a bit like your grandmother trying on a bikini. > Not a pretty site. > > AVR was designed from the ground up to be a modern processor.Why would a rehashed 8051 be THAT bad? The 8051 is a great architecture, I moved from the PIC to the 8051/2 and have never looked back. The single cycle cores add life to the 8051 line and it still is a viable competitor to other 8-bit MCU's decades after its first incarnation. It has tons of free compilers and assemblers out there and lots of example code. It is more mature and is easy to find decent information on it.
Reply by ●February 7, 20062006-02-07
On 2006-02-08, Isaac Bosompem <x86asm@gmail.com> wrote:> diggerdo wrote: >> >> >> >> Single clock C51 FLASH variants hit 33MHz, 35MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz, 100MHz >> >> from various vendors - rather faster than the AVR. >> >> >> >> So, why bother ? >> >> Rehashed 8051 is a bit like your grandmother trying on a bikini. >> Not a pretty site. >> >> AVR was designed from the ground up to be a modern processor. > > Why would a rehashed 8051 be THAT bad? > > The 8051 is a great architecture, I moved from the PIC to the 8051/2 > and have never looked back.Ah, the PIC. The only uController architecture other than the 8048 that would make the 8051 look like a breath of fresh air. ;)> The single cycle cores add life to the 8051 line and it still > is a viable competitor to other 8-bit MCU's decades after its > first incarnation.Actually, if you can get by with internal SRAM and not have to use XDATA and use a programming language that doesn't expect a user-accessible stack, it's not really that bad an architecture. It just sucks as a C target for applications with lots of data.> It has tons of free compilers and assemblers out there and > lots of example code. It is more mature and is easy to find > decent information on it.-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! WHO sees a BEACH at BUNNY sobbing on a SHAG visi.com RUG?!
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
"Isaac Bosompem" <x86asm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1139367382.038001.110630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> diggerdo wrote: >> >> >> >> Single clock C51 FLASH variants hit 33MHz, 35MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz, >> >> 100MHz >> >> from various vendors - rather faster than the AVR. >> >> >> >> So, why bother ? >> >> Rehashed 8051 is a bit like your grandmother trying on a bikini. >> Not a pretty site. >> >> AVR was designed from the ground up to be a modern processor. > > Why would a rehashed 8051 be THAT bad? > > The 8051 is a great architecture, I moved from the PIC to the 8051/2 > and have never looked back. The single cycle cores add life to the 8051 > line and it still is a viable competitor to other 8-bit MCU's decades > after its first incarnation.I've used the 8051 for years, but it is dated. I've used the PICS too, arrg! The 8051 was a great microcontroller in its time. However, the new AVR is very pointer friendly, instruction set designed to be optimum with C, highly scalable FLASH (4K-256K), fair amount of on board RAM, EE, and flexible peripherials. Most 8051s out there are still divide by 12 ... really slow. Move away from the divide by 12 die, and you are back to single sourced. There are a few "triplers" with divide by 4 (Maxim AKA DS), and a smaller number of single cycle cores (Crystal).> It has tons of free compilers and assemblers out there and lots of > example code. It is more mature and is easy to find decent information > on it.AVR has free GCC port that is pretty good. Check out WinAVR package at www.avrfreaks.net
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
Isaac Bosompem wrote:> diggerdo wrote: > >>>> Single clock C51 FLASH variants hit 33MHz, 35MHz, 50MHz, 66MHz, 100MHz >>>>from various vendors - rather faster than the AVR. >>>> >>>> So, why bother ? >> >>Rehashed 8051 is a bit like your grandmother trying on a bikini. >>Not a pretty site. >> >>AVR was designed from the ground up to be a modern processor. > > > Why would a rehashed 8051 be THAT bad? > > The 8051 is a great architecture, I moved from the PIC to the 8051/2 > and have never looked back. The single cycle cores add life to the 8051 > line and it still is a viable competitor to other 8-bit MCU's decades > after its first incarnation.That's because the 80C51 was DESIGNED as a Single Chip Microcontroller, and the tasks done by small uC, do not really change with time. So it has great features for small, embedded control, data sets. The AVR actually started life as an ASIC core, where efficent memory access was not really on the radar, but small gate count was. Its had a number of band-aid fixes as time has gone by; IIRC the latest one is psuedo boolean variables, as it tries to morph into a better Microcontroller. If you want to see a good example of a register-register Microcontroller design, look at the Zilog Z8. That has real features like direct memory opcodes, and register frame pointer - but of course, this was another whole chip designed as a Microcontroller. Both the Z8 and C51 use variable length opcodes. -jg> > It has tons of free compilers and assemblers out there and lots of > example code. It is more mature and is easy to find decent information > on it. >
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
diggerdo wrote:> Most 8051s out there are still divide by 12 ... really slow. > Move away from the divide by 12 die, and you are back to single sourced. > There are a few "triplers" with divide by 4 (Maxim AKA DS), > and a smaller number of single cycle cores (Crystal).Let's see : I think you meant SiLabs ( nee Cygnal?) ? In the same ~10-20 MIPS region as AVR (depends on Vcc), you can choose from Analog Devices CoreRiver Cypress STm Philips STC Winbond ... and in the 20MIPS plus area, the choices are Atmel Dallas SiLabs ( 50MHz and 100MHz 1 cycle models ) Ramtron (soon) STC ... and for High performance Analog C51 cores, you can choose from TI (BurrBrown) Silabs AnalogDevices Teridian Austria Microsystems ... ..and of course, no AVR user would _want_ high performance analog, would they :) ? -jg
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
In article <r1eGf.22992$Jd.18940@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, diggerdo <gotoit@dig.biz> writes>Most 8051s out there are still divide by 12 ... really slow. >Move away from the divide by 12 die, and you are back to single sourced. >There are a few "triplers" with divide by 4 (Maxim AKA DS), >and a smaller number of single cycle cores (Crystal).Most are now divide by 6, 4 or2 with some on single cycle. Last time I looked there were about 600 variants from over 40 manufacturers -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
diggerdo wrote:> > I've used the 8051 for years, but it is dated. I've used the PICS too, > arrg! The 8051 was a great microcontroller in its time. However, the new > AVR > is very pointer friendly, instruction set designed to be optimum with C, > highly scalable FLASH (4K-256K), fair amount of on board RAM, EE, and > flexible peripherials. >Here we go again, the tail wagging the dog. A micro 'designed' to use C is not a recommendation its a good reason not to use it. Ian
Reply by ●February 8, 20062006-02-08
Grant Edwards wrote:> > Actually, if you can get by with internal SRAM and not have to > use XDATA and use a programming language that doesn't expect a > user-accessible stack, it's not really that bad an architecture. > > It just sucks as a C target for applications with lots of data. >Tail wagging the dog again. Ian
