Tim Wescott wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: > >> I am currently working with a client who is designing a PIC >> microprocessor into his system. It may be too late to change, but I >> am being reminded of all the drawbacks to writing software for the PIC. >> >> I heard from a committed PIC booster that "yes, the architecture sucks >> for programming, but the PIC never has delivery problems". Choosing a >> processor that my client couldn't get down the road would trump any >> pain I may experience with less than beautiful code. >> >> Does anyone have experience with alternatives to the PIC (and 8051 >> derivatives) that show that this is not a problem? The ones that come >> to my mind the soonest are the AVR and the MSP430xxx lines, although >> I'm sure that there are German and Japanese alternatives as well. The >> story I heard about delivery problems was specifically about "Atmel >> doesn't understand that it's single-source". >> >> Thanks in advance. >> > This has been a really interesting thread to read, with all the opinions > and all. > > But what I'm curious about is which companies have you had good > experiences with over the years, and which ones have left you feeling > like you'll never be dumb enough to design one of their parts into a > product ever again? > > Thanks in advance. >Microchip has been good with old parts. Find some old numbers and hit them into Digi-key. Plus a lot of there parts migrate upward. a 28pin part is always pin compatible with other parts. Handy if you need more features or power later.
Single-Source PIC, AVR & Alternatives
Started by ●December 9, 2006
Reply by ●December 12, 20062006-12-12
Reply by ●December 12, 20062006-12-12
>>> >>>I guess that, if the rumour mill is true, that would be me :-) >>> >> >> No, I haven't seen any comments from you on xmega, unless you are using >> different user names on different sites > > I think Ulf was answering (strictly) the question > "Who knows what features they will have ?" > - hence the smiley... > > a better question would be "who is prepared to say what features > they will have?" - if the rumour is true, of course. >I guess, if the rumour mill is true, that would not be me ;-)> Seems there is always something new in the pipeline.... >-- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson This is intended to be my personal opinion which may, or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Reply by ●December 12, 20062006-12-12
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:> "rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet > news:1165869096.359955.303550@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > steve wrote: > >> The new SAM7L series is claimed to be ultra low power and have LCD > >> drivers, which is the combo I need, but Atmel is also coming out with > >> Xmega AVR's series shortly (from the rumor mill), who knows what > >> features they will have. > > > > Yes, but the term "ultra low power" has little real meaning just like > > "pico power". The pico power parts have low static current draw, but > > that is only an issue in apps that have to remain in sleep mode for > > more than 99% of the time. Otherwise the SAM7 parts were designed for > > very low active power and were made in a newer process than the AVRs, > > so they get better power consumption. I don't think the Xmega parts > > are going to do any better. > > > > > The Picopower has a power curve that starts at close to zero and increases > in almost a linear fashion. > The main advantage of Picopower is when you are in sleep mode > or are running at low clock frequencies. > When running at high frequency, the main benefit is from the new > cell library, which is not present in the ATmega128, that Rickman > compares with.I looked at the data sheet for the pico power part you recommended, the ATmega324P. It does not seem to be significantly better than the ATmega128. It draws 7.4 mA at 8 MHz which is 37 mW at the rated 5 volt power. It draws 2.1 mA at 4 MHz and 0.4 mA at 1 MHz. This is essentially the same (or worse) as the SAM7S parts, no? The price listed in the press release is not any better than SAM7 prices. As much as you wave your arms, I have not seen any information that shows that either the SAM7 or the AVR devices will do a good job of competing against the CM3 devices coming out in 2007. I understand that with limited resources it may not be the best idea for Atmel to develop a CM3 device line at this time. But I think it is pretty clear that the CM3 is the way that ARM designs will be headed in the near future and that the days of the ARM7 are numbered.
Reply by ●December 12, 20062006-12-12
rickman wrote:> Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > >>"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet >>news:1165869096.359955.303550@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> >>>steve wrote: >>> >>>>The new SAM7L series is claimed to be ultra low power and have LCD >>>>drivers, which is the combo I need, but Atmel is also coming out with >>>>Xmega AVR's series shortly (from the rumor mill), who knows what >>>>features they will have. >>> >>>Yes, but the term "ultra low power" has little real meaning just like >>>"pico power". The pico power parts have low static current draw, but >>>that is only an issue in apps that have to remain in sleep mode for >>>more than 99% of the time. Otherwise the SAM7 parts were designed for >>>very low active power and were made in a newer process than the AVRs, >>>so they get better power consumption. I don't think the Xmega parts >>>are going to do any better. >>> >> >> >>The Picopower has a power curve that starts at close to zero and increases >>in almost a linear fashion. >>The main advantage of Picopower is when you are in sleep mode >>or are running at low clock frequencies. >>When running at high frequency, the main benefit is from the new >>cell library, which is not present in the ATmega128, that Rickman >>compares with. > > > I looked at the data sheet for the pico power part you recommended, the > ATmega324P. It does not seem to be significantly better than the > ATmega128. It draws 7.4 mA at 8 MHz which is 37 mW at the rated 5 volt > power. It draws 2.1 mA at 4 MHz and 0.4 mA at 1 MHz. This is > essentially the same (or worse) as the SAM7S parts, no? The price > listed in the press release is not any better than SAM7 prices. > > As much as you wave your arms, I have not seen any information that > shows that either the SAM7 or the AVR devices will do a good job of > competing against the CM3 devices coming out in 2007. I understand > that with limited resources it may not be the best idea for Atmel to > develop a CM3 device line at this time. But I think it is pretty clear > that the CM3 is the way that ARM designs will be headed in the near > future and that the days of the ARM7 are numbered. >" ... and that the days of the ARM7 are numbered". That's exactly why some things such as the 8051 are so successful in the marketplace. Large parts of the industry (including pretty much all of my clients) cannot consider any components that are likely to fall from grace within a few years. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●December 12, 20062006-12-12
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:00:19 -0800, steve wrote:>> I am surprised that no one else recommended an ARM. > > I don't know, but I suppose many of us have applications that very low > sleep current, which ARM's don't have, or very fast wake up times, which > ARM's don't have, or wide operating voltages (e.g., 1.8 to 5 volts for > AVR's) which ARM's don't have, or require integrated LCD controllers to > drive simple LCD glass, which ARM's don't have. PICs, AVR's,MSP430s, H8's > ,8051s, or Elans all have the above features in a wide variety of flavors > and tiny sizes.Check out AD 'analog ARM's from the ADuC7xxx series: http://www.analog.com/en/subCat/0,2879,762__0__0_,00.html $5 40MHz 8kB SRAM/62kB Flash, 10 ADC, 4 DAC, analog and digital inputs 5V-tolerant, PWM/timers/I2C/serial, 50 uA sleep, 50 mA running. They have a nice ADUC7020 Miniboard eval kit for $30, which is in a 40-pin DIL form factor---looks ideal for prototyping: http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Associated_Docs/153397299aduc7020_adap_a.pdf There's a lot of choice in the ARM space, and as a result nice leapfrogging---the customer wins. Disclaimer: I have no connection to ARM or AD---just read about their new stuff.
Reply by ●December 13, 20062006-12-13
Neil wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: > >> Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>> I am currently working with a client who is designing a PIC >>> microprocessor into his system. It may be too late to change, but I >>> am being reminded of all the drawbacks to writing software for the PIC. >>> >>> I heard from a committed PIC booster that "yes, the architecture >>> sucks for programming, but the PIC never has delivery problems". >>> Choosing a processor that my client couldn't get down the road would >>> trump any pain I may experience with less than beautiful code. >>> >>> Does anyone have experience with alternatives to the PIC (and 8051 >>> derivatives) that show that this is not a problem? The ones that >>> come to my mind the soonest are the AVR and the MSP430xxx lines, >>> although I'm sure that there are German and Japanese alternatives as >>> well. The story I heard about delivery problems was specifically >>> about "Atmel doesn't understand that it's single-source". >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >> This has been a really interesting thread to read, with all the >> opinions and all. >> >> But what I'm curious about is which companies have you had good >> experiences with over the years, and which ones have left you feeling >> like you'll never be dumb enough to design one of their parts into a >> product ever again? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> > > Microchip has been good with old parts. Find some old numbers and hit > them into Digi-key. Plus a lot of there parts migrate upward. a 28pin > part is always pin compatible with other parts. Handy if you need more > features or power later.I can bitch about their instruction set all day, but that pin compatibility is sure sweet. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Reply by ●December 13, 20062006-12-13
Tim Wescott wrote:> Neil wrote: > >> Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> >>>> I am currently working with a client who is designing a PIC >>>> microprocessor into his system. It may be too late to change, but I >>>> am being reminded of all the drawbacks to writing software for the PIC. >>>> >>>> I heard from a committed PIC booster that "yes, the architecture >>>> sucks for programming, but the PIC never has delivery problems". >>>> Choosing a processor that my client couldn't get down the road would >>>> trump any pain I may experience with less than beautiful code. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have experience with alternatives to the PIC (and 8051 >>>> derivatives) that show that this is not a problem? The ones that >>>> come to my mind the soonest are the AVR and the MSP430xxx lines, >>>> although I'm sure that there are German and Japanese alternatives as >>>> well. The story I heard about delivery problems was specifically >>>> about "Atmel doesn't understand that it's single-source". >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> >>> This has been a really interesting thread to read, with all the >>> opinions and all. >>> >>> But what I'm curious about is which companies have you had good >>> experiences with over the years, and which ones have left you feeling >>> like you'll never be dumb enough to design one of their parts into a >>> product ever again? >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >> >> Microchip has been good with old parts. Find some old numbers and hit >> them into Digi-key. Plus a lot of there parts migrate upward. a >> 28pin part is always pin compatible with other parts. Handy if you >> need more features or power later. > > I can bitch about their instruction set all day, but that pin > compatibility is sure sweet. >The Hi-tech compiler generates Very reasonable sized Code. I just ignore it. It is still 8 bits of course.
Reply by ●December 13, 20062006-12-13
przemek klosowski wrote:> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:00:19 -0800, steve wrote: > >> I am surprised that no one else recommended an ARM. > > > > I don't know, but I suppose many of us have applications that very low > > sleep current, which ARM's don't have, or very fast wake up times, which > > ARM's don't have, or wide operating voltages (e.g., 1.8 to 5 volts for > > AVR's) which ARM's don't have, or require integrated LCD controllers to > > drive simple LCD glass, which ARM's don't have. PICs, AVR's,MSP430s, H8's > > ,8051s, or Elans all have the above features in a wide variety of flavors > > and tiny sizes. > > Check out AD 'analog ARM's from the ADuC7xxx series: > > http://www.analog.com/en/subCat/0,2879,762__0__0_,00.html > > $5 40MHz 8kB SRAM/62kB Flash, 10 ADC, 4 DAC, analog and digital > inputs 5V-tolerant, PWM/timers/I2C/serial, 50 uA sleep, 50 mA running. > They have a nice ADUC7020 Miniboard eval kit for $30, which is in a 40-pin > DIL form factor---looks ideal for prototyping: > > http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Associated_Docs/153397299aduc7020_adap_a.pdf > > There's a lot of choice in the ARM space, and as a result nice > leapfrogging---the customer wins. > > Disclaimer: I have no connection to ARM or AD---just read about their > new stuff.I have used that chip, at full speed the power/mips ratio is great, but at 1Mhz, the typical power requirement is 40X greater the MSP430/AVR, at 300Khz, 100X greater, and that is with no A/D's or DAC running
Reply by ●December 13, 20062006-12-13
steve wrote:> I have used that chip, at full speed the power/mips ratio is great, but > at 1Mhz, the typical power requirement is 40X greater the MSP430/AVR, > at 300Khz, 100X greater, and that is with no A/D's or DAC runningI have looked at the ADUC ARM stuff and it is a nice chip if you need good analog. But it has a 7 mA quiescent power draw. I was just at a seminar for these parts and they confirmed that this is true, but did not give an explanation for it. Like you say, at full power it is ok, but if you are trying to save power by running a slow clock it is not a good choice.
Reply by ●December 13, 20062006-12-13
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166024794.412126.143740@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> I have looked at the ADUC ARM stuff and it is a nice chip if you need > good analog. But it has a 7 mA quiescent power draw. I was just at a > seminar for these parts and they confirmed that this is true, but did > not give an explanation for it.7mA has got to be a design error (I mean, it's not like a Pentium with 65nm transistors that leak like sieves...), so I'd expect they'd come out with a better version ASAP. I'm sure someone's butt has been roundly kicked...
