EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Electronics => Microcontrollers => Topic started by: ali_asadzadeh on January 23, 2016, 02:34:29 pm
-
Hi,
The news is the war is over. So what's your ideas?
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good :-+
I wonder if Atmel Studio and MPLAB X IDE are going to have a mash up :-//
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good :-+
I wonder if Atmel Studio and MPLAB X IDE are going to have a mash up :-//
I hope not, I rather like the current edition of Atmel Studio.
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good
In certain way Microchip was one of the few companies that was still offering attractive products with their proprietary architecture, and now seems like the real winner is the ARM holding. This will impoverish the range of state of the art options for developers.
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good
In certain way Microchip was one of the few companies that was still offering attractive products with their proprietary architecture, and now seems like the real winner is the ARM holding. This will impoverish the range of state of the art options for developers.
Microchip and state-of-the-art really don't go together! One cheap crap company bought another cheap crap company in an attempt to consolidate their (obviously) shrinking cheap crap market share. If there ever was a war between Microchip and Atmel then it is safe to say they killed each other. A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
-
I think we might have different definitions of both "cheap" and "crap"...though that sentence wins amusingly-grumpy points from me at least ;)
-
This will impoverish the range of state of the art options for developers.
Which are...?
PIC is far from being state-of-the-art, and AVR's hardly count as cutting edge technology.
I like AVRs, but only because they are so damn easy to program and everything fit together nicely. Performance-wise ARMs have won the battle years ago. If it weren't for Arduino making AVRs so popular, they'd be long gone.
A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
I have the same opinion, but I prefer to keep it to myself not to get insulted. I just laugh silently at people who defend PICs so adamantely.
Back on topic, this deal needed 2 things to happen:
- Atmel had to come up with $137M to pay Dialog - the previous bidder - as a termionation fee. EETimes reports (http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328735) that Atmel paid this value sometime this week.
- Atmel stockholders need to approve the deal. I believe their next meeting is in March, and only then this deal can be effectively closed. Since Microcrap is offering more for each stock than its trading price, I see no problem in the stockholders approving the deal.
It's hard to tell what will become of this new company. I find it very unfortunate that Atmel had to be sold, but that's the way it goes.
-
PIC is far from being state-of-the-art
We must not only consider the state-of-the-art some technology, but also a product itself. Microchip in fact, was never an undertaking of innovative solutions, and even for me, remotely would be my choice for new projects, but at least the 16F family has fulfilled its purpose 10 years ago to offer an easy uC to use, which was confirmed by the expressive public achieved .
I'm apart from the merit of judging their portfolio, it's not my intention to discuss the predicates of each one, but just highlight the fact which deserves our attention is that once again we're undergoing to another fusion, whose natural denouement is to dismiss half of both design houses, and and slow the development of new products, the absence of significant competition at the same niche.
-
What about crap cheap? I really wonder what's going to happen with MPLABx and Atmel Studio!?!
-
I have a few xmega dev-boards lying around, waiting for some experience.
But with this confirmed, i'll drop learning xmegas.
I'll concentrate on moving my new designs100% to Arm.
ST are currently my favorite. But i do like some of the NXP's also.
I'll still do some AVR Mega stuff , as i do like them.
But i'm heading for Arm
/Bingo
-
Hi,
The news is the war is over. So what's your ideas?
They better fix their shit slow PK3, I just spent whole day debugging and having to use Visual Studio to debug my C code what a bloody fail, I will never use a PIC again, I was attracted to their simplicity.. honey pot.
-
This will impoverish the range of state of the art options for developers.
Microchip aren't in the business of pushing the state of the art. Their main successes are in selling fairly simple MCUs and analogue parts, backed by really good service. Service is a big deal in their sector of the market. Atmel has a number of things which are state of the art. We'll have to see how that plays out.
-
Microchip and state-of-the-art really don't go together! One cheap crap company bought another cheap crap company in an attempt to consolidate their (obviously) shrinking cheap crap market share. If there ever was a war between Microchip and Atmel then it is safe to say they killed each other. A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
you are right!
-
If this merger does lead to the demise of Mplab X, and a restructuring of Microchip's whole software strategy, there is some good in it.
This will impoverish the range of state of the art options for developers.
Agreed. More choices are always better.
-
I tend to agree with a lot of the posts, Microchip are not innovators. Started out as General Instrument Microelectronics and changed their name to Microchip in '87. I remember fixing a door bell based on a 28 pin GI PIC1657 it was NMOS, that's the only GI PIC16xx part I've ever seen.
It took Microchip decades to sort out the read modify write bug on port pins and try driving WS8212B leds with the old SPI peripheral, FAIL, that 1-bit delay scews things up big time, they havn't got a clue about buffers. Maybe the Microchip designers should learn HDL or logic at the very least. However, the enhanced SPI peripheral works only in multiples of 8-bits, FAIL. Had to bit-bash in the end.
Tried using MX32 parts recently and Harmony, FAIL. I need to turn all of the interrupts off and back on, every macro I tried failed, yep macro not function because it's not functional, I even looked through the assembler and there was no code !!. So you haven't written it then guys, Harmony = FAIL. Why the hell would you abstract C to something that doesn't work.
Anyway, long story short, changed the MX32 to something older, DsPIC32.. Now I can program in C, plus inline assembler where needed, using the XC16 compiler. That works, well it worked on the rats nest breadboard, and two out of three production boards.
Seems that not all DsPICs will run at 40Mips, had to tweak down to 30Mips, now it works.
Microchip = crap hardware and crap software and now they aquire Atmel, I hope they fire all the Microchip engineers, I just wish it was the other way around :-BROKE
-
PIC is far from being state-of-the-art
We must not only consider the state-of-the-art some technology, but also a product itself. Microchip in fact, was never an undertaking of innovative solutions, and even for me, remotely would be my choice for new projects, but at least the 16F family has fulfilled its purpose 10 years ago to offer an easy uC to use, which was confirmed by the expressive public achieved .
I'm apart from the merit of judging their portfolio, it's not my intention to discuss the predicates of each one, but just highlight the fact which deserves our attention is that once again we're undergoing to another fusion, whose natural denouement is to dismiss half of both design houses, and and slow the development of new products, the absence of significant competition at the same niche.
On that we agree (I still disagree on the "state-of-the-art" bit, though!) , and I posted something along the same lines in the other topic about this acquisition. This *might* have an impact on our choices of suppliers. PIC and AVRs have historically been the 2 competing sides for hobbists, and now both will belong to the same manufacturer, who will be able to set prices as it seems fit.
IMHO, this acquisition only strengthens the ARM foothold on the uC marketplace. Anyone shopping for 32-bit uCs will have the choices of:
- competing 32-bit architectures supplied by the same manufacturer (32F vs. Atmel`s 32 bit solutions)
- ARM, with its vast choices of suppliers, also including the one above
It's hard to tell what this new company is gonna do about the 2 competing standards, but I hope they release some info soon, because people are getting impatient. Honestly, I think it would be quite dumb of Microchip to dump either one (AVR or PIC), because I think both are still quite profitable products. They might streamline their product lines ' though, because some of the products might be redundant (specially analog products) in the new company.
Honestly, I hope the suits behind this think smart and don't forget about about us hobbists, and it all works out for the best for everyone.
-
Honestly, I hope the suits behind this think smart and don't forget about about us hobbists
The today's hobbyists may be the tomorrow's professionals. Both companies apparently shared this same standpoint on their business, and deservedly got their part on the marketplace. As you, hopefully that the things don't change much.
-
Hi,
The news is the war is over. So what's your ideas?
They better fix their shit slow PK3, I just spent whole day debugging and having to use Visual Studio to debug my C code what a bloody fail, I will never use a PIC again, I was attracted to their simplicity.. honey pot.
Slightly comfused? Using Visual Studio to debug with PK3? No wonder it was slow...... either you made a typo or are talking a steaming load of bollocks ;-)
-
The today's hobbyists may be the tomorrow's professionals.
Possible but not probable.
-
Possible but not probable
I guess the primary message has been aready caught, but to paraphrase:
- "Those who starts playing satisfied with certain MCU/IDE, tends to keep with the same manufacturer"
:-+
-
"Those who starts playing satisfied with certain MCU/IDE, tends to keep with the same manufacturer"
Over the short term, it is probably true.
Over the long term, it is unlikely to be true: if you just look around there, there are always people who look for new things to learn, to try out, ... If the said manufacturer cannot remain competitive in its offerings, he will be left behind. Microchip, in my view, belongs to that category.
-
Microchip and state-of-the-art really don't go together! One cheap crap company bought another cheap crap company in an attempt to consolidate their (obviously) shrinking cheap crap market share. If there ever was a war between Microchip and Atmel then it is safe to say they killed each other. A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
Don't hold back your opinions, tell us what you really think ;D
-
Back in the 90's Microchip published an application note on how to multiply two 8-bit numbers for 16CXX processors, so I programmed it in, and guess what, it got 0xff x 0xff wrong, they left a few instructions out. GI PIC what a load of crap, there were better processors back then 6802, 6502, Z80, I8051, I8048, TMS7000 !! GI PIC16 what a pile of shit and Microchip still selling this stuff.
It's a shame that a bunch of stupid people who can't design hardware and can't write software buy Atmel.
-
The today's hobbyists may be the tomorrow's professionals.
I strongly disagree. That may be valid for students, but not for other professionals that have taken electronics as a hobby. Am i such a case: I won't leave my regular trade (IT) to work with EE. Besides, EE professionals, will delve into what the market demands, and today the market is demanding ARM.
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good :-+
That seems to be one of the big obvious things that will come as a result.
Expect to see Atmel ARM chips with PIC peripherals
-
GI PIC what a load of crap, there were better processors back then 6802, 6502, Z80, I8051, I8048, TMS7000 !! GI PIC16 what a pile of shit and Microchip still selling this stuff.
Err, that was 28 years ago. A few improvements have been made since then.
-
Microchip and state-of-the-art really don't go together! One cheap crap company bought another cheap crap company in an attempt to consolidate their (obviously) shrinking cheap crap market share. If there ever was a war between Microchip and Atmel then it is safe to say they killed each other. A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
And many people who moved to ARM have been burned by parts becoming either obsolete very quickly in the industry scheme of things, or the company being bought and the processor line they used dropped.
Microchip on the other hand are still selling micros from 20+ years ago.
ARM ain't the universal panacea many make it out to be.
-
... And many people who moved to ARM have been burned by parts becoming either obsolete very quickly in the industry scheme of things, or the company being bought and the processor line they used dropped.
Microchip on the other hand are still selling micros from 20+ years ago.
ARM ain't the universal panacea many make it out to be.
Shit! And I was just considering using freescale ARM parts for new design. How big is the chance NXP will kill those chip lines in closest 5 years?
-
Back in the 90's Microchip published an application note on how to multiply two 8-bit numbers for 16CXX processors, so I programmed it in, and guess what, it got 0xff x 0xff wrong, they left a few instructions out. GI PIC what a load of crap, there were better processors back then 6802, 6502, Z80, I8051, I8048, TMS7000 !! GI PIC16 what a pile of shit and Microchip still selling this stuff.
It's a shame that a bunch of stupid people who can't design hardware and can't write software buy Atmel.
Okay, I dislike PICs as much as the next Atmel fanboy, but come on, it's a pile of shit because of one bug in an app note? Care to say who does meet your high standards? Some Atmel parts have errata lists a mile long, and they've certainly got some dodgy app notes...
-
Expect to see Atmel ARM chips with PIC peripherals
Just to bring an worthless information, but which incidentally underlines your wishes:
The term PIC is an acronym of "Peripheral Interface Controller"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller
-
richardman what am I really thinking ? Microchip killing off the serial processing market with a pile of shit hardware and software that doesn't work real time. What is that interrupt latency that isn't documented, I shouldn't have to measure it with a scope but I have to, because to measure is to know. Serial processing, thats old school, and Microchip screwing things up with abstracted software.
I don't think Microchip got a clue about processing, they can't design hardware peripherals that work let alone software.
-
PIC peripherals, you got to be joking, they don't work, they can't get core Silicon right let alone peripherals.
-
This *might* have an impact on our choices of suppliers. PIC and AVRs have historically been the 2 competing sides for hobbyists, and now both will belong to the same manufacturer, who will be able to set prices as it seems fit.
Yes, I see this as the biggest worry. Less competition generally means higher prices.
This will affect high volume manufacturers in many more ways than just the hobbyist market.
Microchip has certainly been on a buying spree in recent years:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/business/dealbook/microchip-technology-to-buy-atmel-for-nearly-3-6-billion.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/business/dealbook/microchip-technology-to-buy-atmel-for-nearly-3-6-billion.html?_r=0)
-
I don't think Microchip got a clue about processing, they can't design hardware peripherals that work let alone software...
PIC peripherals, you got to be joking, they don't work, they can't get core Silicon right let alone peripherals.
Which is why nobody buys Microchip MCUs and now Atmel is buying them out. Oh wait...
Microchip Reclaims Top 8-bit Microcontroller Revenue Ranking
2014 Market Share Grows in 8, 16 and 32-bit MCUs; Breaks Into Top 10 for 32-bit (http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler/en-us/press-release/microchip-reclaims-top-8-bit-m.html)
CHANDLER, Ariz., April 27, 2015
“We are pleased to report that Microchip has regained the #1 position for 8-bit microcontrollers,” said Steve Sanghi, Microchip’s president and CEO. “Four years ago, it took the merger of three Japanese semiconductor giants—NEC, Hitachi and Mitsubishi in the form of Renesas—to knock us off the #1 spot for 8-bit MCUs. We said at the time that we would work relentlessly to gain market share and wrest back the #1 spot. Following their merger in 2010, Renesas’ 8-bit MCU business was 41% larger than ours. In every year since 2010, we closed the gap, and in 2014 we regained our leadership position, finishing 10.5% higher than Renesas.”
All those stupid customers buying PICs that don't work!
-
Microchip and state-of-the-art really don't go together! One cheap crap company bought another cheap crap company in an attempt to consolidate their (obviously) shrinking cheap crap market share. If there ever was a war between Microchip and Atmel then it is safe to say they killed each other. A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
And many people who moved to ARM have been burned by parts becoming either obsolete very quickly in the industry scheme of things, or the company being bought and the processor line they used dropped.
Microchip on the other hand are still selling micros from 20+ years ago.
ARM ain't the universal panacea many make it out to be.
You can't attribute some manufacturers having short term support to ARM; I'd expected better reasoning! When using a device and need long term availability you should always investigate whether it is a small hit&run company or they have a good track record. NXP for example still has their first ARM devices (LPC2104/5/6) active which have been introduced over a decade ago. Not to mention their original 8051 portfolio!
@AcHmed99: Look at NXP for short errata sheets!
-
Someone mentioned Atmel is staying afloat because of the Arduino...
AVR chip sales due to Arduino are a drop in the sea. Profits are made by selling millions to industry and not one piece to a weekend engineer.
And the industry doesn't care if the chip has ARM or whatever architecture. They care about the price. They will choose whatever chip is capable of doing the job for the lowest cost possible. That is why the 8 bit micros are still present on the market. There are many products where 8 bit uC is good enough and much less products where a more powerful uC is needed.
-
Microchip and state-of-the-art really don't go together! One cheap crap company bought another cheap crap company in an attempt to consolidate their (obviously) shrinking cheap crap market share. If there ever was a war between Microchip and Atmel then it is safe to say they killed each other. A few years ago I got lots of angry comments when I told people PIC is crap and they should look at ARM. Those days are long gone!
And many people who moved to ARM have been burned by parts becoming either obsolete very quickly in the industry scheme of things, or the company being bought and the processor line they used dropped.
Microchip on the other hand are still selling micros from 20+ years ago.
ARM ain't the universal panacea many make it out to be.
You can't attribute some manufacturers having short term support to ARM; I'd expected better reasoning! When using a device and need long term availability you should always investigate whether it is a small hit&run company or they have a good track record. NXP for example still has their first ARM devices (LPC2104/5/6) active which have been introduced over a decade ago. Not to mention their original 8051 portfolio!
@AcHmed99: Look at NXP for short errata sheets!
you are a nxp guy here, question do they sample chips outside Europe?
-
richardman what am I really thinking ? Microchip killing off the serial processing market with a pile of shit hardware and software that doesn't work real time. What is that interrupt latency that isn't documented, I shouldn't have to measure it with a scope but I have to, because to measure is to know. Serial processing, thats old school, and Microchip screwing things up with abstracted software.
I don't think Microchip got a clue about processing, they can't design hardware peripherals that work let alone software.
Of course you have to measure this. How else are you going to know? Or could you tell me exactly what software timing requirements you have on a STM32F427 Cortex m4 chip with 8 USARTs firing off RXNE, TXE & IDLE interrupts, timer interrupts, DMA transfer complete requests, ethernet/USB ticks while some DMA request is stalling the complete peripheral bus because the APB1 DMA peripheral is trying to access the APB2 bus?
No - what's even more great is that the USART implementation on (I believe any) STM32 doesn't have a FIFO. That's great when it's serving 8 USARTs @ 115200 Baud. The only answer you will find is "DMA is it all".. but no not really. What about variable packet sizes, response latency when you use DMA timeouts, or DMA stream/request collisions with other peripherals? In order to find this all out, you are forced to look up the 1731 page user manual and hope you don't miss anything. Else you're basically screwed.
And don't get me started on the STM timers: could they have made that any more complex? And it still doesn't do what I wanted it to do - like generate DMA requests with ETR pin at that frequency - not at half of it.
Although the peripherals of PIC are usually very simple and scarce of configuration bits - I do like some of the flexibility. E.g. there is no messing about with DMA request tables; just enter an IRQn and it's all good.
Can't say much good about the 8-bit PIC core. I stopped using them for anything requiring more than 1 C source file. If anything is gained from this acquisition; they should at least merge the AVR core with some of the PICs pluses.
I don't agree that Atmel/Microchip should watch carefully are the hobbyists. The "market share" of hobbyists is absolutely nothing - yet we find ourselves very important in the market. Although many students & young engineers will probably start using a particular microcontroller they have used in their quality time, for anything that's really work related it's all about the features, familiarity with other engineers and development time/cost.
-
you are a nxp guy here, question do they sample chips outside Europe?
Probably but I always buy the microcontrollers from Farnell, Digikey or Mouser, etc.
-
Someone mentioned Atmel is staying afloat because of the Arduino...
AVR chip sales due to Arduino are a drop in the sea. Profits are made by selling millions to industry and not one piece to a weekend engineer.
Correct.
And the industry doesn't care if the chip has ARM or whatever architecture. They care about the price.
Correct again.
They will choose whatever chip is capable of doing the job for the lowest cost possible.
Three out of three. You're right on the knocker.
That is why the 8 bit micros are still present on the market. There are many products where 8 bit uC is good enough and much less products where a more powerful uC is needed.
Four out of four.
I'm glad someone in this forum understands that to be successful against your competition, you need to meet at least one of the following three conditions:
1/ Make your widget for less $$ than you competitors;
2/ Make a better widget (that customers can still afford to buy) than your competitors;
3/ Preferably, be able to meet both 1/ & 2/ above.
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good :-+
That seems to be one of the big obvious things that will come as a result.
Expect to see Atmel ARM chips with PIC peripherals
:-+ would be nice :)
-
PIC is going to have an ARM core, I am not enthusiastic, but I think it's good :-+
I wonder if Atmel Studio and MPLAB X IDE are going to have a mash up :-//
I hope not, I rather like the current edition of Atmel Studio.
I hope not, MPLAB X is ten times better then that bloated Atmel Studio. Even worse, Atmel Studio requires windows.
I'm not surprised Atmel has been taken over...
-
Hi,
The news is the war is over. So what's your ideas?
They better fix their shit slow PK3, I just spent whole day debugging and having to use Visual Studio to debug my C code what a bloody fail, I will never use a PIC again, I was attracted to their simplicity.. honey pot.
Blame yourself for buying something cheap. If you want speed, open your wallet and buy an ICD3.
-
How big is the chance NXP will kill those chip lines in closest 5 years?
if anything, you should worry about NXP/Freescale killing the NXP parts.
-
I don't agree that Atmel/Microchip should watch carefully are the hobbyists.
Agreed. The hobbyist market is tiny for those guys. I think I once estimated that on a good day the Arduino means less than 1% of Atmel's mcu business.
-
Thanks Hans, I will avoid STM32, and I thought PICs were bad. They're not that bad PIC18 and 24 are still useful. Might have a look at TI's MSP430 and they now come with nonvolatile FRAM, nice feature.
-
The hobby market is still important - not so much for the sales, but for the students learining about that type of µC. In industrie it is not only about the price of the chips but also about the engeniers knowing the chips. There is a considerable price tag if they have to learn a new achitetecture and an new IDE. This is why many offer free IDEs.
-
They better fix their shit slow PK3, I just spent whole day debugging and having to use Visual Studio to debug my C code what a bloody fail, I will never use a PIC again, I was attracted to their simplicity.. honey pot.
Blame yourself for buying something cheap. If you want speed, open your wallet and buy an ICD3.
atmel avr mk2 has both cheap and speed, even the clone one like mine... no need to blame myself..
-
The hobby market is still important - not so much for the sales, but for the students learining about that type of µC.
I doubt that has much influence. In most companies there will be seasoned engineers and the interns and the employees fresh from school will have very little say in which microcontroller to use in a project. The focus for many vendors is to somehow persuade the senior engineers to switch to a different architecture. Just for fun have some sales reps over and watch. They'll all start bragging how easy the IDE from vendor blablabla is and how quick you can get started. Those would be true if you forget all the software engineering angles to firmware development...
-
I'm glad someone in this forum understands that to be successful against your competition, you need to meet at least one of the following three conditions:
1/ Make your widget for less $$ than you competitors;
2/ Make a better widget (that customers can still afford to buy) than your competitors;
One or both of the above AND
3/ Be there before your competitiors
-
I doubt that has much influence. In most companies there will be seasoned engineers and the interns and the employees fresh from school will have very little say in which microcontroller to use in a project
I agree in part, however it is not the way like things happens in general. There are not rare cases in which a team of a project focused for years on maintaining and making small improvements, is allocated for the coming projects, and after a few years the staff as a whole became out of date in relation to technological innovations, and the newcomers properly selected brings accretion of knowledge to the group.
-
Blame yourself for buying something cheap. If you want speed, open your wallet and buy an ICD3.
Haha, you're so funny!
The time it takes my ICD3 to even turn on I could have burned and started debugging my STM8, STM32, or PSoC project by now, and been most of the way there with AVR - It'd be waiting for Atmel's dumb update thing to go away.
Debugging - or even programming - Microchip parts with their debuggers is just painful compared to the competition.
-
How big is the chance NXP will kill those chip lines in closest 5 years?
if anything, you should worry about NXP/Freescale killing the NXP parts.
Hi
Everything that is being said about the ATMEL / Microchip thing could just as easily be said about ARM and the Freescale MCU families. They pretty much killed off forward motion on all their old families when the decision to "go ARM" was made. One could debate that move as well. Net result is that today you are asking if Freescale ARM kills NXP ARM.
Why does this matter in the context of this thread?
ATMEL / Microchip could just as easily turn into a low end ARM powerhouse. They both have a following. If they can hang on to those customers while making the transition (for the most part Freescale seems to have done so) then it should work out well for them.
Bob
-
They pretty much killed off forward motion on all their old families when the decision to "go ARM" was made.
Because the "core" is being commoditized - what "core" a mcu uses does not matter to the end user as much as the peripherals that core utilizes.
I have always said that the proliferation of ARM cores is more or less a marketing thing - as a shareholder of ARM, I am happy about it. But it is downright stupid for any user to make a decision based on what "core" a mcu carries.
As long as you code in a high level language like C, the "core" is fully transparent to you. My non-hardware specific code runs on 8051 as well as it does on a CM4.
-
Hi
There is a lot of high speed bit bang assembler still running on cheap and dirty MCU's. That's the end of the world that Microchip and Atmel mostly played in. There the ability to toggle a bit with a single instruction at full "clock speed" (what ever that happens to mean) may be pretty important. Some of the "good old cores" were optimized for stuff like that. ARM and C ... not quite so much... Now before that starts a war, indeed some of the "good old cores" really sucked at doing this sort of thing.
Filp over to things like math performance running C and there's no contest. ARM wins. Not a lot of blink the LED and play a tune greeting cards were very math intensive ...
Bob
-
Filp over to things like math performance running C and there's no contest. ARM wins.
not really, unless you count FPUs and use faster clock speed - not a fair fight then, in my view: I think I did an extensive dhrystone benchmarking of mcus, from 8051 to CM4F. No significant advantage for CMx chips over other comparable chips. PIC24 and PIC32 did reasonably well while CM0 and some CM3 did poorly.
edit:
i did some quick test, counting the instruction cycles of executing a version of the berkley random number generator - producing "long" rather than "int" output, to tilt the playing field towards 32-bit chips.
PIC24F: 60 cycles;
PIC32F: 27 - 30 cycles;
Cortex-M: 20 - 55 cycles;
ARM7TDMI: 15 cycles;
A15: 17 cycles;
So on a per Mhz basis, ARM doesn't hold much advantage over comparable chips.
-
Filp over to things like math performance running C and there's no contest. ARM wins.
not really, unless you count FPUs and use faster clock speed - not a fair fight then, in my view: I think I did an extensive dhrystone benchmarking of mcus, from 8051 to CM4F. No significant advantage for CMx chips over other comparable chips. PIC24 and PIC32 did reasonably well while CM0 and some CM3 did poorly.
Hi
Not a fair fight indeed. Unfortunately that's what happens on a dollar for dollar comparison. The ARM gizmo has a faster clock. It doesn't help it on bit bang stuff, but that (and the 32 bit bus compared to 8 bit) cleans up on math.
Bob
-
Filp over to things like math performance running C and there's no contest. ARM wins.
not really, unless you count FPUs and use faster clock speed - not a fair fight then, in my view: I think I did an extensive dhrystone benchmarking of mcus, from 8051 to CM4F. No significant advantage for CMx chips over other comparable chips. PIC24 and PIC32 did reasonably well while CM0 and some CM3 did poorly.
All PIC32MZ EF have single cycle FPU (single and double precision) and DSP instructions. M4F is only single precision. M7 has two optional FPUs, either single or single+double.
Before PIC32MZ is written off, in terms of hardware while I agree that the original EC version is indeed something to avoid, the more recent PIC32MZ EF is definitely worth consideration if you're at that segment of the market (M4/M4F/M7). The EC was simply not ready for release.
On another note regarding whether or not to be price conscious, while I agree for one off's and very short runs, say 20 or less, you're wasting your time trying to shave off a few cents here and there, that's not the case for larger volumes, even from 100 off. Part of the hardware design criteria has to be pricing and availability of parts in the latter case, and you have to look at it in terms of a system, not just the individual parts. For example adding a reasonable performance ADC to an MCU can be a much more expensive piece of work than finding an MCU with that ADC integrated into the chip, you may need external FIFOs and muxes too for example.
Whether ARM or not should not just depend on the core. Realistically, knowing ARM from one manufacturer isn't going to help that much when going to another. More important is the already accumulated knowledge of toolchains and a given manufacturer's devices. Learning a new device from a different manufacturer, with or without ARM, is still going to need work, and the core is a relatively small part of that.
Having said all that, if you're just starting out in the MCU world and it's only 32 bit you're interested in, and don't care about anything else like peripherals and toolchains, I'd have little hesitation in suggesting that ARM is going to be a better choice due to sheer market penetration. Your biggest problem then is understanding the ARM market and the differentiators, which between ARM and their licensees' marketing have done a crap job over the years.
-
Still when using PIC you have a very limited choice of compilers or need to spend cash on a non-crippled version which in case of PIC32 is an older version of GCC. For ARM you can use the latest GCC version which has improved code density.
-
Still when using PIC you have a very limited choice of compilers or need to spend cash on a non-crippled version which in case of PIC32 is an older version of GCC. For ARM you can use the latest GCC version which has improved code density.
I'd definitely agree with that. Microchip really must take a look at their competitive offering in this respect, especially if you use their entire range where there are three compilers to fund.
ISTR reading somewhere that you can build your unrestricted PIC32 compiler if you know what you're doing an have a bit of time on your hands. There have certainly been various hacks over time for all three compilers to uncrippled them, although I don't know how many still work, particularly for the XC8 compiler which isn't GCC. Bearing in mind the flakiness of the current licensing mechanism, and the amount of time and effort you can spend getting a legitimate license to work in Pro mode, a hack can seem like a reasonable proposition!
-
you can build your unrestricted PIC32 compiler if you know what you're doing
With all the eevblog "experts" who insist on rolling their own compilers / make files, it wouldn't surprise me that they have built unrestricted pic32 compilers millions of times by now.
:)
-
you can build your unrestricted PIC32 compiler if you know what you're doing
With all the eevblog "experts" who insist on rolling their own compilers / make files, it wouldn't surprise me that they have built unrestricted pic32 compilers millions of times by now.
Despite the artificial limitations, we are quite satisfied with Microchip's GCC compiler for PIC32.
A possible explanation for why you don't find improved versions of GCC for PIC's could be that most people are ... satisfied.
-
you can build your unrestricted PIC32 compiler if you know what you're doing
With all the eevblog "experts" who insist on rolling their own compilers / make files, it wouldn't surprise me that they have built unrestricted pic32 compilers millions of times by now.
:)
Hi
For that matter, you *can* write your own compiler from scratch / line by line. Been there / done that / don't want to do it again. Just because you *can* does not mean you *should*. Even the mainstream tools have gotcha's in them. The further you head off on your own, the more likely bugs are to creep into your tools. If indeed you can get high quality (indeed a relative term) tools for ARM for free, having to head off into the weeds to play with something else is a major problem.
Whatever comes out of this merger, they better get the tool offerings working right. That's either a "join the Borg err ARM" thing or put some real money into their own tools group. The days of grabbing some university project for your tools are long gone (yes you can dig into your Microchip history book and find that section).
Bob
-
Despite the artificial limitations, we are quite satisfied with Microchip's GCC compiler for PIC32.
True. I have always been happy with C30/XC16, and C32/XC32 though my experience there is highly limited. the newer versions of XC8 are highly competitive vs. PICC std/pro.
A possible explanation for why you don't find improved versions of GCC for PIC's could be that most people are ... satisfied.
Not for our "experts" who seem to be always complaining about how inadequate those tools are, how they are built on older gcc, how "crippled" they are, how much microchip charges for them, and how microchip should give away their hardwork.
I always wondered that with the source code widely available, why don't those "experts" just spend a few minutes and roll their own?
:)
-
how much microchip charges for them, and how microchip should give away their hardwork.
Counterpoint: I don't think Microchip "should" give away their hard work, but since so many other vendors do, I'll just go to them instead. ^-^
-
how much microchip charges for them, and how microchip should give away their hardwork.
Counterpoint: I don't think Microchip "should" give away their hard work, but since so many other vendors do, I'll just go to them instead. ^-^
Hi
The logic seems to be "we are a silicon company, we do tools to sell silicon". There are often people who make "better" tools and charge for them. The bigger the audience, the more competitive that end of it gets (better bang for the buck). Unfortunately for the older Microchip / Atmel cores, that's another win for ARM.
Bob
-
I always wondered that with the source code widely available, why don't those "experts" just spend a few minutes and roll their own?
:)
Because then they would be real experts.
Microchip's free compilers are optimized for learning and debugging. If you need more optimization for a commercial product then the cost of the compiler isn't an issue. If you're a hobbyist then just buy a more powerful chip. If you're a freeloader who doesn't want to pay for either then why should Microchip (or anybody) care about you?
There are often people who make "better" tools and charge for them. The bigger the audience, the more competitive that end of it gets (better bang for the buck). Unfortunately for the older Microchip / Atmel cores, that's another win for ARM.
Which ARM-specific tools are better 'bang for the buck'?
-
I always wondered that with the source code widely available, why don't those "experts" just spend a few minutes and roll their own?
:)
Because then they would be real experts.
Microchip's free compilers are optimized for learning and debugging. If you need more optimization for a commercial product then the cost of the compiler isn't an issue. If you're a hobbyist then just buy a more powerful chip. If you're a freeloader who doesn't want to pay for either then why should Microchip (or anybody) care about you?
For the past 25 years I have been doing this: Whenever a sales rep wants me to use a microcontroller I always tell them I must have a full compiler+tools for free. If a manufacturer is serious about their microcontrollers they should be able to provide this for their valued customers. For the past 25 years I have never paid for a microcontroller toolchain! There is enough competition between microcontrollers so use that to your advantage.
edit: typo
-
Which ARM-specific tools are better 'bang for the buck'?
Hi
Keil certainly seems to have a very real following in that respect. It certainly cleans up compared to the good old Microchip tools. Indeed not a fair comparison. Again, that's sort of the point. It's really tough to do up a big fancy toolset for a small audience.
Just to be very clear, no I don't use Kiel. For what I do, it's overpriced. If we needed to add horsepower to the tools, it is on my short list of things to look at.
Bob
-
I don't use Kiel. For what I do, it's overpriced.
I can't see a price on Kiel's website. How much does it cost?
-
you can build your unrestricted PIC32 compiler if you know what you're doing
With all the eevblog "experts" who insist on rolling their own compilers / make files, it wouldn't surprise me that they have built unrestricted pic32 compilers millions of times by now.
:)
unfortunatley every single one of them requires a particular operating system build and toolchain that nobody else is interested.
-
Keil certainly seems to have a very real following in that respect. It certainly cleans up
Or in my case, locks up >:(
(http://www.bhabbott.net.nz/files/kiel.png)
No more Kiel for me!
-
I don't use Kiel. For what I do, it's overpriced.
I can't see a price on Kiel's website. How much does it cost?
~USD$5000
-
I don't use Kiel. For what I do, it's overpriced.
I can't see a price on Kiel's website. How much does it cost?
Hi
A lot depends on which options you add into the package. It's the options that add the horsepower. Last time I added things up with a reasonable set of this and that, it was in the > $10K range. You also get to pay a yearly fee to continue support.
While that's not prohibitive at work, it takes it out of consideration here at home. They do have student versions, I'm not a student. As another post mentioned, if the people want me to use their MCU, they better supply me with a good set of free tools. That's worked for a long time for me ... It's quite true that if I look at the "great tools" back in the 1980's and what we have today, standards have changed. To some extent it is keeping up with change that is the problem for these outfits.
Bob
-
Microchip's free compilers are optimized for learning and debugging. If you need more optimization for a commercial product then the cost of the compiler isn't an issue. If you're a hobbyist then just buy a more powerful chip. If you're a freeloader who doesn't want to pay for either then why should Microchip (or anybody) care about you?
Another option for PIC compilers is Mikroelektronika. They have an IDE/compiler for 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit PIC for $249-299. I've never used it, but it might be a viable option.
http://www.mikroe.com/mikroc/pic32/ (http://www.mikroe.com/mikroc/pic32/)
-
Why not use the SDCC for 8 bit PICs? Its free. Its linux-compatible. Its great. And mips-gcc for PIC32?
-
I tried sdcc for stm8 awhile back. It produces really bulky code as it does trim unused functions in the linked, making it impossible to use for my development approach.
I'm quite happy with xc8/picc and xc16/c30, in both free and pro modes. Earlier copies of xc8 was not that great in producing tight code but the newer ones are much better, better than picc std and very close to picc pro.
Ç30 and xc16 have always been top notch in my experience.
-
Hi
A lot of the difference in tools revolves around things like profiling capabilities. If you have a regulatory need to do that (it's the law) then your are going to do a lot of it ....
Count yourself lucky (I am) if that does not make any sense to you. It's can be a major headache for those that it does apply to.
Bob
-
When I went to download an update for Atmel Studio, a news post is on Atmel's website: Microchip acquiring Atmel.
So what is your view on this? Afterthis acruision Microchip will have several sets of competing products: AVR vs PIC, AVR32 vs ARM vs PIC32, something probably will have to be dropped.
-
I just read the news about the acquisition in this thread.
Didn't know about it until just now.
Hopefully they will keep the name Atmel, as I like it better than Microchip.
Actually I was surprised that Microchip is so much bigger than Atmel. I thought they were in the same league.
Pity, that it isn't the other way around. Atmel is a better company, and a better name as well :)
-
I just read the news about the acquisition in this thread.
Didn't know about it until just now.
Hopefully they will keep the name Atmel, as I like it better than Microchip.
Actually I was surprised that Microchip is so much bigger than Atmel. I thought they were in the same league.
Pity, that it isn't the other way around. Atmel is a better company, and a better name as well :)
Hi
Based on the other Microchip "conquests" over the years.... the Atmel name is gone as is any Atmel specific approach to business. If there is something you want / need to get from them, grab it in the next couple of years. It will take a while for all of the changes to ripple through to the edges of the new empire.
Bob
-
Atmel have nice products, thewy bloody well better not get rid of them. The AVR core IS faster than the PIC one and to ditch it would be very bad form. Microchip also make lots of other chips and are bigger, they make one of the most popular CAN controllers, nice cheap ADC's mosfets drivers, all sorts of things whereas atmel just does micro controllers. I hope microchip don't turn into another TE.
-
Why not use the SDCC for 8 bit PICs? Its free. Its linux-compatible. Its great. And mips-gcc for PIC32?
the most smartest thing i ever read on this thread ^-^
-
Atmel have nice products, thewy bloody well better not get rid of them. The AVR core IS faster than the PIC one and to ditch it would be very bad form. Microchip also make lots of other chips and are bigger, they make one of the most popular CAN controllers, nice cheap ADC's mosfets drivers, all sorts of things whereas atmel just does micro controllers. I hope microchip don't turn into another TE.
Hi
If you are expecting them to drop the PIC core and go with Atmel .... not a good bet. They already have a few more cores than make sense so support for something is going to drop out of the mix. That's the only way to make the finance guys happy.
Not arguing the merits of the cores at all, only the inevitability of how these things always turn out. The "why" behind that is always the same.
Bob
-
That is my fear, and all they will do is kill atmel, because I for one will not use a PIC, I refuse to use a device that requires a certain pin to be held to ground in order for it to be programmed because of a known silicone bug that is poorly documented. That is called a shit product. I and I am sure many others will just move onto something that is not AVR or PIC, well done microchip, if you can't make a better product, you kill theirs!
-
..., well done microchip, if you can't make a better product, you kill theirs!
If Atmel products are so much better, why couldn't they compete? It's not that Microchip has a monopoly or so.
On the contrary, Arduino choose for Atmel which was good publicity for Atmel.
So, the question remains, what is the reason that Atmel is much smaller than Microchip?
They lost us because of their bad software tools, particularly Atmel studio and their Linux support for their programmers.
-
Well everyone will have different requirements. for me microchip was a nuisance. our subcontractor codes a project, but we need to be able to change variables, but then we can't compile the code because it needs a £1000 compiler. Atmel does not have this problem for me. People will have their choices and not always based on what is best in one respect. I know a motor driver designer that uses PIC but he has problems with speed of the processor making all the calculations he needs. I guess the choice for him is historic but if he used AVR he would have a bit more headroom.
for me it's ease of use. not that I have looked at a microchip datasheet recently but the AVR ones are easy to understand and I don't get caught by stupid silicone bugs that can ruin my design.
A silicone bug like having to pull one pin low that has nothing to do with programming when you program should be made clear at the start of the datasheet, not hidden in a seperate document.
On the other had atmel are terrible at their PR and their youtube stuff is a joke, as is their flagship forum AVR freaks.
-
Well everyone will have different requirements. for me microchip was a nuisance. our subcontractor codes a project, but we need to be able to change variables, but then we can't compile the code because it needs a £1000 compiler. Atmel does not have this problem for me. People will have their choices and not always based on what is best in one respect. I know a motor driver designer that uses PIC but he has problems with speed of the processor making all the calculations he needs. I guess the choice for him is historic but if he used AVR he would have a bit more headroom.
for me it's ease of use. not that I have looked at a microchip datasheet recently but the AVR ones are easy to understand and I don't get caught by stupid silicone bugs that can ruin my design.
A silicone bug like having to pull one pin low that has nothing to do with programming when you program should be made clear at the start of the datasheet, not hidden in a seperate document.
On the other had atmel are terrible at their PR and their youtube stuff is a joke, as is their flagship forum AVR freaks.
Still, the question remains, what is the reason that Atmel is much smaller than Microchip?
-
what is the reason that Atmel is much smaller than Microchip?
They're not THAT much smaller. $1.26B in revenue vs $2.16B; Microchip has a much broader product line (including Analog and power supply chips, plus things from more recent acquisitions. Microchip has historically been MUCH more profitable, though. I would imagine that's the sort of thing that you look for when you're buying companies "They have good products and sales, but they're managing to waste money doing XX badly, and WE do XX well!"
I have not observed Microchip discontinuing product lines from their acquisitions - they're selling 8051s, after all!
-
Microchip has historically been MUCH more profitable, though.
How's that possible if Atmel is supposed to be "better"? (which I don't believe)
-
^Profitability of the company has little to do with how good the product is, as far as an engineer is concerned.
I refuse to use a device that requires a certain pin to be held to ground in order for it to be programmed because of a known silicone bug that is poorly documented.
I vaguely recall this. Can you remind me which device this is? This seems like it happened 5+ years ago on a device that is probably not even relevant, anymore.
I was not aware that microchip was known for being particularly bad with errata. I have heard this complaint about AVR, too. :-//
-
"what is the reason that Atmel is much smaller than Microchip?"
Atmel is much newer vs microchip. Look at the revenue growth, margins, and asp on comparable products.
Microchip needs acquisitions to be relevant. Atmel doesn't.
-
^Profitability of the company has little to do with how good the product is, as far as an engineer is concerned.
I refuse to use a device that requires a certain pin to be held to ground in order for it to be programmed because of a known silicone bug that is poorly documented.
I vaguely recall this. Can you remind me which device this is? This seems like it happened 5+ years ago on a device that is probably not even relevant, anymore.
I was not aware that microchip was known for being particularly bad with errata. I have heard this complaint about AVR, too. :-//
16F883
-
Microchip needs acquisitions to be relevant. Atmel doesn't.
The acquisition effectively made Atmel irrelevant.
-
Microchip needs acquisitions to be relevant. Atmel doesn't.
The acquisition effectively made Atmel irrelevant.
except lots of us want to use their products. Like i said hopefully Microchip does not tern into another TE. Buying the competition to make them irrelevant and discontinue their products is basically admitting your own could not compete.
-
Atmel is much newer vs microchip.
Atmel started in 1984. Microchip was founded in 1987, although it did have a previous history as General Instruments Microcircuits, and the PIC dates back to 1970s Scotland. Age doesn't really differentiate them much.
-
Microchip needs acquisitions to be relevant. Atmel doesn't.
The acquisition effectively made Atmel irrelevant.
except lots of us want to use their products.
Apparently, more people want to use Microchip products.
Like i said hopefully Microchip does not tern into another TE.
I believe take overs like this are bad in general (also if it should be the other way around). We need choice & competition.
Buying the competition to make them irrelevant and discontinue their products is basically admitting your own could not compete.
That depends on how you look at it. The fact that Atmel has been taken over, effectively means that they lost the competition.
Btw, I like both Atmel and Microchip mcu's. It's just that monstrous Atmel studio that chased us away.
-
1. I'm very curious about future product lines. What will happen to my PIC24s and my ATxmegas?
2. Microchip Support >>> Atmel Support. I have always very much appreciated the clarity in Microchip's application notes and other supporting docs. I've found Atmel's support to be rather confusing in comparison. I think this merger could potentially improve documentation for Atmel devices.
3. Future IDE? Will there be a new master IDE or will MPLAB products just start supporting Atmel devices?
-
I hope they will keep Atmel Studio. While I personally use Atom.io for everything I much prefer visual studio over netbeans. I just can't stand the buggyness of netbeans. The plus side is of course that is does support Linux unlike visual studio (even though this should change in the next two years).
-
Buying the competition to make them irrelevant and discontinue their products is basically admitting your own could not compete.
That depends on how you look at it. The fact that Atmel has been taken over, effectively means that they lost the competition.
It depends on which competition we are talking about. Everything in this world is measured against its monetary value. Better is not always cheaper this is a problem I have at work all the time. I'm having to do things badly because short-term it's cheaper. The fact that microchip have more dough than Atmel says nothing at all about the products themselves. As has been said above a number of times microchip have a much wider range of products if I needed to use a can controller it would be a microchip one. I have already bought a nice (well on paper anyway) ADC for not much money made by microchip. I'm currently looking at MOSFET gate drivers and guess what I found a nice microchip product none of these are products that have a processing core in them and I'm sure they make up a large portion of microchips market. If Atmel is worth only half microchip then I would say that they are shifting at least as many microcontrollers if not more. The fact that microchip have more money than Atmel has nothing to do with who is better or not.
-
Still the analog parts from Microchip perform very poor when compared to those from A- brands like Texas Instruments, Analog devices or Linear technology. For example a 12 bit ADC from Microchip can have a 8LSB error where an ADC from an A-brand typically has an error of 1LSB or less. What is the price per effective number of bits?
-
Microchip has historically been MUCH more profitable, though.
How's that possible if Atmel is supposed to be "better"? (which I don't believe)
I don't believe it either (I mean, I like the AVR better than the 8-bit PICs, but that's pretty minor when it comes to overall evaluation of the companies.)
But the profitability question is pretty easy: Atmel, LONG ago, decided that Microchip was their chief competitor, so their pretty much have to be price-competitive with the Microchip chips, even if they cost more to make. Throw in some bad decisions about whether, how many, and where to buy fabs, and an occasional internal executive management conflict, and it's pretty easy for a company with a better product to have lower profits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/business/11norris.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/business/11norris.html?_r=0) )
-
Still the analog parts from Microchip perform very poor when compared to those from A- brands like Texas Instruments, Analog devices or Linear technology. For example a 12 bit ADC from Microchip can have a 8LSB error where an ADC from an A-brand typically has an error of 1LSB or less. What is the price per effective number of bits?
Ah, let me guess, microchip is cheaper, you make my point beautifully......... cheaper products maybe shit but cheaper, mre successful for some.
-
Still the analog parts from Microchip perform very poor when compared to those from A- brands like Texas Instruments, Analog devices or Linear technology. For example a 12 bit ADC from Microchip can have a 8LSB error where an ADC from an A-brand typically has an error of 1LSB or less. What is the price per effective number of bits?
Ah, let me guess, microchip is cheaper, you make my point beautifully......... cheaper products maybe shit but cheaper, mre successful for some.
You are missing the point... Unless you are designing a high volume product (>10k) the cost of engineering is dominating the costs. Choosing a better chip helps to shorten design time and leaves room for error. Over the years (decades) Atmel and Microchip products presented me with some nasty surprises needing more engineering effort compared to using an A-brand chip. All in all I have found that going for the cheapest parts is more expensive in the long run.
-
yes, so what you are saying is that large volume products use the cheaper parts as the savings overcome the extra cost. so that may make microchip a better option for some and maybe successful in some peoples eyes. Just because Atmel is smaller I don't think it means their products are bad. As we all know the PIC is an old design, why should the more modern and efficient product be discarded ?
If microchip abolish Atmel parts I will switch elsewhere altogether.
-
The latest round of takeovers is a little different to others. These are not companies on a stock market tear borrowing billions, or needing to eliminate competitors. They are companies sitting on a pile of cash, and with low interest rates, and not much growth in the market, looking to expand through acquisitions. Of course, there is bound to be some consolidation, and where there is overlap roadmaps will be frozen or merged.
But there is no need for the newly merged companies to go on a big cost cutting exercise. They will want to keep as many products and customers as possible. So I think it likely that most of the AVR range will survive, and quite possibly a lot of the Atmel range in general. It will be branded Microchip though. Microchip did well acquiring a legacy 8 bit chip design and building a good support and supply chain, so they might repeat that with AVR.
-
Microchip did well acquiring a legacy 8 bit chip design and building a good support and supply chain, so they might repeat that with AVR.
Hang on, do you mean microchip bought the architecture ? no wonder it's old hat. the atmel parts exist because two students came up with an inovative design and sold it to a company willing to take it on. some difference fom a company buying some old hat design and pretending decades later that it's the latest and greatest.
-
Hang on, do you mean microchip bought the architecture ?
No, Microchip was formed when General Instrument spun off their chip-making division (including the PIC line) into a separate company.
-
but it's a very old design then, they have no bothered to make anything better since.
-
16F883
Is essentially obsolete by now. PIC still makes a lot of chips that are no longer relevant for current design. They still sell them... at higher cost for the people that can't be bothered to migrate.
16F1936 has twice the stack depth, wider supply voltage range of operation, an extended instruction set, internall PLL, and a lot of additional features. And it's cheaper. This has been the case for at least the past 4-5 years, I think. It looks like 883 was one of the earlier chips to have been introduced with the new nanowatt technology. But right on the heels came many other advancements of the enhanced midrange chips. If you ever want to use an 8 bit PIC, use the microchip website tools to start looking for the best match. And if the part number doesn't start with a "1", doublecheck your selection.
One of the only places 883 appears to have an advantage is standy current of 50nA vs 100nA.
but it's a very old design then, they have no bothered to make anything better since.
The important thing for me, is the support and tools and supply chain. I could care less about innovation in the silicon. I want the parts to be available now and in the future, at a good price, in quantities small or large. I want complete and consistent documentation. I want a working tool chain and good, inexpensive or even free dev tools.
I honestly wouldn't be worried at all about AVR lineup. I think Microchip will improve AVR, if anything.
-
On a side note...
Why on earth does Microchip have so many parts! Couldn't they just put all the functions into a mother of all PICs and then allow you to disable/enable the peripherals?
When they add in the Atmel parts... they will have even more.... Mind blowing.
-
It is called product life cycle mgmt.
Microchip realized, correctly, that the 8bit mkt will continue to shrink, soon to a point of not being able to support multiple players. So consolidation is the way to go. They will cut staff across the board, and cross sell like crazy, in order to pay for the premium they laid for atmel.
So in a sense the winners here are atmel shareholders and microchip mgmt.
The fact that no one puts up an anti trust complaint about the transactions speaks volume about mkts view of the prospect for 8bit mcus.
8bit used to be a meaningful business for us from a revenue perspective. But once we factored the costs to support that revenue, we concluded that it was not the best use of our resources and we cut it like a hot potato. Looking back I still admires the foresight we had in that decision, :)
-
Why on earth does Microchip have so many parts!
I think this is part of their financial success.
1. They have the web tools and supply chain sorted out for maintaining a huge number of parts. It is easy to find the part you might need.
2. NRE costs. They are able to sell "obsolete" chips for a higher cost compared to better devices. As long as people are willing to pay, why not sell them what they want? As long as they are offering pin-4-pin compatible devices that are better and cheaper, no one will complain about a modest price hike.
The fact they still supply stuff that was obsolete 10 years ago is pretty awesome... If you're willing to pay 4X as much for 1/4 the device, that's your call.
The more familiar you are with PICs, the less attached you get to individual devices. The pinout and documentation and header files are very consistent within a family. They are very interchangeable. Going back 10+ years. They do a very good job of maintaining this consistency.
-
It is also due to their selling to price sensitive buyers so have the right parts with the right and minimum combinations of features allow them the lowest possible prices.
-
^ Yes, this too. 5 years ago, I would have prioritized this first, and the other second part second or not-at-all.
What I realize after living through the obscolescence of devices is the significance of price differences going the opposite way.
Microchip seems to have found a good balance. They realize not all people pay more (or even as much) just to use the latest and greatest chip, because it comes with the cost of having to RTFM and deal with possibility of errata. Their price structure is balanced to motivate enough people to migrate to the newer technology, paying for the R&D and new silicon assembly lines with the sales of older chips at increasingly higher cost before shutting down shop. They seem to know what they're doing.
Having a "flagship" chip with everything is great, but in 3 years, there will be new and better features, and the early adopters that chase after the flagships are going to jump ship to the new chip. Cheap bastards that buy stuff because it's cheap are going to hold off on migration, because they don't care about new features and they don't want to pay NRE. But they'll get your money by increasing your cost 3 cents at a time.:)
-
but it's a very old design then, [microchip] have no bothered to make anything better since.
huh? PIC18, PIC24, PIC30, PIC33, PIC32 are all "new and better" than what they started with. Shucks; AFAIK what they started with was the 40pin PIC17 chips in expensive UV-erasable packages, so you can add "small package microcontrollers" to their list of "innovations", along with "aggressive use of OTP and electrically erasable program memory" (remember the PIC16C84? People (not smart people) are still using them (well, 16f84s, anyway. Still sold.) The revolutionized dealing with the hobby market as well - I could buy PICs from dealers like digikey or parallax back when Atmel chips were only available through "real electronics distributors." (yeah, that was back before digilkey qualified as a "real distributor.")
There are reasons to dislike Microchip. There are reasons to dislike Atmel. But between the two of them, they've pretty much OWNED the "small microcontroller" market, and it's somewhat natural that they merge...