Forums

Two Ethernet MACs in a new DualCore ARM Microcontroller

Started by Bill Giovino April 25, 2006
DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet MACs, and a whole lot
more on one microcontroller:

http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp

Not a bad start for a startup, huh?

Regards,

Bill Giovino
Executive Editor
http://Microcontroller.com



Bill Giovino wrote:
> DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet > MACs, and a whole lot more on one microcontroller: > > http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp > > Not a bad start for a startup, huh? >
But at "below $20" it sounds expensive.
> Regards, > > Bill Giovino > Executive Editor > http://Microcontroller.com
-- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This message is intended to be my own personal view and it may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

> Bill Giovino wrote: > >>DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet >>MACs, and a whole lot more on one microcontroller: >> >>http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp >> >>Not a bad start for a startup, huh? >> > > > But at "below $20" it sounds expensive.
True, and it also starts to call for a different category than "Microcontroller", with limited on-chip memory it probably is more correctly an "Embedded Microprocessor" - or a ROM-less Microcontroller -jg
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:444f3fcc@clear.net.nz...
> Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > >> Bill Giovino wrote: >> >>>DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet >>>MACs, and a whole lot more on one microcontroller: >>> >>>http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp >>> >>>Not a bad start for a startup, huh? >>> >> >> >> But at "below $20" it sounds expensive. > > True, and it also starts to call for a different category than > "Microcontroller", with limited on-chip memory it probably is more > correctly an "Embedded Microprocessor" - or a ROM-less Microcontroller > -jg
What is it then that defines something as a microcontroller rather than a microprocessor? Does it have to have on-chip memory for that? My Sharp ARM7 has no on-board flash but has 8K of on-board RAM. Does that make it a microprocessor?
Tom Lucas wrote:
> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message > news:444f3fcc@clear.net.nz... >> Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> >>> Bill Giovino wrote: >>> >>>> DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet >>>> MACs, and a whole lot more on one microcontroller: >>>> >>>> http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp >>>> >>>> Not a bad start for a startup, huh? >>>> >>> >>> >>> But at "below $20" it sounds expensive. >> >> True, and it also starts to call for a different category than >> "Microcontroller", with limited on-chip memory it probably is more >> correctly an "Embedded Microprocessor" - or a ROM-less >> Microcontroller -jg > > What is it then that defines something as a microcontroller rather > than a microprocessor? Does it have to have on-chip memory for that? > My Sharp ARM7 has no on-board flash but has 8K of on-board RAM. Does > that make it a microprocessor?
A new Troll! To me the fact that a CPU is combined with peripherals makes it a microcontroller, but this is my private opinion. There are no clear boundaries and a discussion is probably a waste of time. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This message is intended to be my own personal view and it may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Tom Lucas wrote:

> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message > news:444f3fcc@clear.net.nz... > >>Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> >> >>>Bill Giovino wrote: >>> >>> >>>>DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet >>>>MACs, and a whole lot more on one microcontroller: >>>> >>>>http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp >>>> >>>>Not a bad start for a startup, huh? >>>> >>> >>> >>>But at "below $20" it sounds expensive. >> >> True, and it also starts to call for a different category than >>"Microcontroller", with limited on-chip memory it probably is more >>correctly an "Embedded Microprocessor" - or a ROM-less Microcontroller >>-jg > > > What is it then that defines something as a microcontroller rather than a > microprocessor? Does it have to have on-chip memory for that? My Sharp ARM7 > has no on-board flash but has 8K of on-board RAM. Does that make it a > microprocessor?
Years ago, it was more clearly delineated: There was the Microprocessor (8080 etc) and the Microcontroller (8748 et al), and the Microcontroller was "self contained" - it was a one-chip control solution. There was not a lot of code memory, but it WAS on chip. These days, someone in marketing is more likely to decide (on a whim) - so we get a growing number of devices that are no longer single chip solutions, but still get called Microcontrollers.... Or, companies marketing dept's try and get all the buzz-words they can, in case they miss one ... ? :) For example, I see Atmel call the AVR32 many different things : Microprocessor and Digital Signal Controller and MCU/DSP and SoC and Microcontroller ..... - A truly google-friendly core ?! ;) -jg
"Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote in message 
news:e2nj7f$h8l$1@emma.aioe.org...
> Tom Lucas wrote: >> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message >> news:444f3fcc@clear.net.nz... >>> Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Giovino wrote: >>>> >>>>> DualCore has introduced a monster - two ARMs, two 10/100 Ethernet >>>>> MACs, and a whole lot more on one microcontroller: >>>>> >>>>> http://microcontroller.com/news/dualcore_DCIC9907.asp >>>>> >>>>> Not a bad start for a startup, huh? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But at "below $20" it sounds expensive. >>> >>> True, and it also starts to call for a different category than >>> "Microcontroller", with limited on-chip memory it probably is more >>> correctly an "Embedded Microprocessor" - or a ROM-less >>> Microcontroller -jg >> >> What is it then that defines something as a microcontroller rather >> than a microprocessor? Does it have to have on-chip memory for that? >> My Sharp ARM7 has no on-board flash but has 8K of on-board RAM. Does >> that make it a microprocessor? > > A new Troll!
I'll admit it looks like something that may have been trolled before but I am interested to know what the difference is and if there is a definition, even if out of date.
> > To me the fact that a CPU is combined with peripherals makes it > a microcontroller, but this is my private opinion. > There are no clear boundaries and a discussion is probably a waste of > time. >
If wasting time were not allowed then considerable areas of usenet would have to be should down :-)
> Best Regards, > Ulf Samuelsson > ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com > This message is intended to be my own personal view and it > may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB > > >
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Tom Lucas wrote: > >>"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message >>news:444f3fcc@clear.net.nz... >>> True, and it also starts to call for a different category than >>>"Microcontroller", with limited on-chip memory it probably is more >>>correctly an "Embedded Microprocessor" - or a ROM-less >>>Microcontroller -jg >> >>What is it then that defines something as a microcontroller rather >>than a microprocessor? Does it have to have on-chip memory for that? >>My Sharp ARM7 has no on-board flash but has 8K of on-board RAM. Does >>that make it a microprocessor? > > > A new Troll! > > To me the fact that a CPU is combined with peripherals makes it > a microcontroller, but this is my private opinion. > There are no clear boundaries and a discussion is probably a waste of time.
Zilog gives a good example/lead of what is a Processor, and what is a Microcontroller. They make both, and have done for years. Their delineation is not based on peripherals, but on-chip CODE memory. -jg
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:29:49 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson"
<ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote:

>To me the fact that a CPU is combined with peripherals makes it >a microcontroller, but this is my private opinion. >There are no clear boundaries and a discussion is probably a waste of time.
That's I've been tought: CPU + peripherals (even ROM) => microcontroller. But with this definitions the AMD Opteron with RAM interface is a microcontrollers too. -- 42Bastian Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-) Use <same-name>@monlynx.de instead !
42Bastian Schick wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:29:49 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson" > <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: > >> To me the fact that a CPU is combined with peripherals makes it >> a microcontroller, but this is my private opinion. >> There are no clear boundaries and a discussion is probably a waste >> of time. > > That's I've been tought: CPU + peripherals (even ROM) => > microcontroller. But with this definitions the AMD Opteron with RAM > interface is a microcontrollers too.
I think any definition should be rule based. The rules below are prioritized, and once a decision is made, there is no need to parse lower priority rules. Rule 1) Anything running late versions of Windows (CE does not count here) is not a microcontroller I am going to ignore all comment about Geode... Rule 2) Anything without internal code memory (cache does not count here) is not a microcontroller Rule 3) Anything with a serial communication channel, is a microcontroller Rule 4) Anything without minimum 1 timer providing a periodic interrupt is not a microcontroller Rule 5) Anything without minimum 1 programmable I/O pin is not a microcontroller Rule 6) Anyting REQUIRING a companion chip, is not a microcontroller ... Rule n) It is a microcontroller If I follow these rules above (which I just invented), then the chips I can think of which I intuitively think are microcontrollers will be classified as microcontrollers. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This message is intended to be my own personal view and it may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB