Faster DIP14 chip

[Jan Audio]

Hi, i use the PIC161704, DIP14 MCU with 8 bit DAC on pin 10.
PIC16 has good PPS, not for the DAC.

Is there a better MCU in DIP14 from another brand ?
Microchip only has 28 pin packages for better chips, and have no 8-bit DAC.
I need it to be faster, and no less RAM, and have UART and fast ADC ( bits dont matter ).

Is it possible to have 8-bit or better internal DAC with another brand ?
Does other brands have also PPS like PIC16 ?

thanks

[MT]

STM32G071 etc,dual 12bit DAC, not DIP but LQFP32 whos neatly solder able. https://www.st.com/en/microcontrollers-microprocessors/stm32g0x1.html

[mikerj]

You can get some of the Atmel SAM D10 variants in a 14 pin SOIC package, which you could mount on a DIP breakout board.  That gives you a 48MHz Cortex M0+ core and a 10 bit DAC.

[PCB.Wiz]

Is there a better MCU in DIP14 from another brand ?

DIP14 is a legacy package, so no chipmaker will release new parts in that, volumes are very, very small.
As mentioned, better are SO14, SO16 and TQFP32, which open up many choices.
eg  EFM8LB1 is in TQFP32 and specs 72MHz and 12b DACs (and 14b ADC and usual UARTS/i2c/spi/PWM/CLU etc)

[hli]

Did you have a look at the Microchip advances parts selector (https://www.microchip.com/maps/Microcontroller.aspx )? (Although from a quick look it seems that all MCU in DIP14 max out at 8MIPS)

[Jan Audio]

Thanks all.
So it dont exists.

STM32G071 etc,dual 12bit DAC, not DIP but LQFP32 whos neatly solder able. https://www.st.com/en/microcontrollers-microprocessors/stm32g0x1.html

I have those converter things from ebay in all sizes.
Are these 32pin chips solderable in a 14 pin converter thing somehow ?

You can get some of the Atmel SAM D10 variants in a 14 pin SOIC package, which you could mount on a DIP breakout board.  That gives you a 48MHz Cortex M0+ core and a 10 bit DAC.

Sounds good, it will fit the converter directly.
I havent looked into smaller chips from microchip either, maybe they also have something themselfs.

Thanks for your knowledge, saved me a day surfing.

[Jan Audio]

If i start with SMD i need to have money.
Those prints in china arent cheap, i dont make small things.
Converters are bigger compared to DIP package, i have no space already.

[TK]

If i start with SMD i need to have money.
Those prints in china arent cheap, i dont make small things.
Converters are bigger compared to DIP package, i have no space already.

You can get 5 small pcbs made in China for $2 + shipping, they are cheap

[Jan Audio]

10mm by 10mm i dont know what to do with.

[hli]

10mm by 10mm i dont know what to do with.

I think you wanted to say "100mmx100mm is big enough" (e.g. JLCPCB).

[jackthomson41]

You can use ATtiny85 or ATtiny44, both are 14 pin Microcontrollers and can be used with Arduino IDE.

[Jan Audio]

10mm by 10mm i dont know what to do with.

I think you wanted to say "100mmx100mm is big enough" (e.g. JLCPCB).

Ok, nice, what is the link for that ?, thanks.
2 dollar for 5 10x10cm boards, nice.

[lucazader]

I have used both of these in the past:

https://jlcpcb.com/
https://www.pcbway.com/

[rsjsouza]

Is there a better MCU in DIP14 from another brand ?

The MSP430G family has a few interesting parts in DIP packaging. In DIP 14 you have something perhaps too small for your application (MSP430G2331), but their flagship is the MSP430G2553 in DIP 20 pins.

[NorthGuy]

What do you mean by "faster"? What do you want to do and how fast you want to do this?

[Jan Audio]

For faster i mean clockspeed and ADC.

There is audio going into the ADC, then it will be delayed, and outputted on the PORTC pins.
A sine LUT is modifieing the delay time, receiving UART data to adjust the frequency, i like to add some more parameters and dont want to make the samplerate any slower.
All is working good, i just like to have higher samplerate, so the ADC can not be slower, and the instructions need to be faster also.
The DAC is for a OTA control voltage.

I made this circuit and i was wondering if it could be improved with another brand, maybe 16 bit or even 32 bit.

[Jan Audio]

I have used both of these in the past:

https://jlcpcb.com/
https://www.pcbway.com/

So the jlcpcb has free shipping ?, the pcbway has 17 shipping.
Very nice then, weird if you buy 10 piece it cost 5,-

Now i have to learn how to design my 10by10cm SMD card.
I need to drill holes to use pin headers, so the cards can be placed into breadboard.
Downside is i have no SMD parts.

So nice, only by the time i,m ready to order prices will be high, always the same.

[NorthGuy]

There is audio ...

Why not to take a chip designed for Audio, such as dsPIC33FJ128GP802? It certainly is rather old and has 28 pins instead of 14, but does this really matter when you can make a PCB for only $5? It has multi channel Audio DAC which is specifically designed for audio. Also has I2S. The CPU is also specifically designed for signal processing.

[Jan Audio]

The dsPIC33FJ128GP802 has weird noise in the DAC.
I use 39 row experiment board, i have to start with china SMD boards.
With 39 rows - 28 is no space left, or have to use jumper wires that are a weak point.
The DSPIC also takes a lot of mA.

+ the DSPIC has a 16 bit DAC, not a 16 bit ADC ?

I have a few dsPIC33FJ128GP802 left, i wont buy them anymore, going to PIC32.

[TK]

I have used both of these in the past:

https://jlcpcb.com/
https://www.pcbway.com/

So the jlcpcb has free shipping ?, the pcbway has 17 shipping.
Very nice then, weird if you buy 10 piece it cost 5,-

Now i have to learn how to design my 10by10cm SMD card.
I need to drill holes to use pin headers, so the cards can be placed into breadboard.
Downside is i have no SMD parts.

So nice, only by the time i,m ready to order prices will be high, always the same.

You can design through hole PCB, it is the same price as SMD.  JLCPCB does not have free shipping.  Where are you getting all these non-sense information from?

[Jan Audio]

You can get 5 small pcbs made in China for $2 + shipping, they are cheap

I has readed 2 dollar with shipping.
Who is gonna pay 17 shipping for a 2 dollar thing ?
So these 5 PCBs cost 19 dollar.
Forget it i wont buy.

[TK]

You can get 5 small pcbs made in China for $2 + shipping, they are cheap

I has readed 2 dollar with shipping.
Who is gonna pay 17 shipping for a 2 dollar thing ?
So these 5 PCBs cost 19 dollar.
Forget it i wont buy.

It all depends how you take advantage of it.  You can add more designs, SMD to through hole adapters, specific prototyping PCBs that suit your needs and distribute the shipping cost among them and you end up with a bunch of low cost PCBs

[NorthGuy]

PCBWay is somewhere in $7 to 15 range for shipping their stock $5 boards, depending on the size of the board. If you order 5 boards instead of 10, the shipping will be slightly less.

If your boards are small, don't forget OSHPark. They make execellent boards (ENIG, superb quality) and charge $1.67/sq. inch (you need to order in chunks of 3 boards though) with free shipping.

[westfw]

don't forget OSHPark. They make execellent boards (ENIG, superb quality) and charge $1.67/sq. inch

$1.67 ??  OSHPark is (always has been) $5/sq in.  It's swell if you want to make a couple of SMT to 14pin DIP adapters, but gets pretty expensive by the time you hit credit-card (ie Arduino) sized boards.

[Jan Audio]

You can use ATtiny84 or ATtiny44, both are 14 pin Microcontrollers and can be used with Arduino IDE.

For the ATtiny84 i was searching, i read you can make UART with a USI module ?
Does this mean there will be code in the main loop for making UART ?

[snarkysparky]

PIC24F04KA201 in dip14 package.

10-Bit, up to 9-Channel Analog-to-Digital Converter:
- 500 ksps conversion rate

 Modified Harvard Architecture
• Up to 16 MIPS Operation @ 32 MHz
• 8 MHz Internal Oscillator with 4x PLL Option and
Multiple Divide Options
• 17-Bit by 17-Bit Single-Cycle Hardware Multiplier
• 32-Bit by 16-Bit Hardware Divider
• 16-Bit x 16-Bit Working Register Array
• C Compiler Optimized Instruction Set Architecture

[cv007]

>8-bit or better internal DAC

>PIC24F04KA201 in dip14 package.
>For the ATtiny84 i was searching, i read you can make UART with a USI module ?

Unless I'm missing something, you're missing something.


If you expand your searching to include up to qfn20 and probably even qfn24, you can have the footprint of a dip14 with 0.3" width pin spacing (assuming you only use up to 14pins).

I paid under $30 total for 100 of these boards from jlcpcb (plus 10 of another board about 4 times the size). Its only a good deal if I use use many of them, but it shows you can make your own adapter board, or skip the adapter phase, once you settle on something. To get to that point, you get a $10 dev board and see what you can do, and if it works out you can go to the next step, or if not, get another dev board and try again.

[snarkysparky]

Ur right.  I claim to suffer from ADC DAC dyslexia. 

[cv007]

I have the same thing, but currently its limited to when I'm typing on the keyboard (in addition to normal typing problems). I'm losing finger sync, I guess.

[Scrts]

...but their flagship is the MSP430G2553 in DIP 20 pins.

Cut the last 6 pins and keep them floating

[profdc9]

I have made my projects with the Bluepill because it is a moderately powered 32-bit ARM processor in a DIP-40 package, so it can be mounted using pin header sockets into a PCB or a breadboard.  Not as small as you want, but cheap and readily available.

[Jan Audio]

Hello, what chip is 40pin DIP ARM ?

[jhpadjustable]

Hello, what chip is 40pin DIP ARM ?

You got your 2.54mm pitch on 15.2mm centers. That will fit directly into any 40-pin DIP socket you can find. Just solder machine pin headers on it and close your eyes and pretend.

[mikerj]

Hello, what chip is 40pin DIP ARM ?

It's not a 40pin DIP package, it's an STM32F103C8 mounted on a small PCB with pins so it can be used on a breadboard (or DIP socket).   They are very cheap to buy, though it seems there are plenty of them using STM32 clones rather than genuine parts. Bluepill details.

[Jan Audio]

Anyways the ports on other chips are different.
PORTC has 6 pins on other locations.

[ogden]

Anyways the ports on other chips are different.

Yes. Because chips *are* different. If you want to use Port named "C", with same pins as PIC16F1704, then use (surprize!) PIC16F1704.

[wnorcott]

There are actually quite a number of Texas Instruments MSP430 series microcontrollers available in PDIP14 package here is a list with some PIC thrown in there too.

https://www.mouser.com/Semiconductors/Embedded-Processors-Controllers/Microcontrollers-MCU/16-bit-Microcontrollers-MCU/_/N-a85k8?P=1z0y3wa

Happy reading.

[ogden]

There are actually quite a number of Texas Instruments MSP430 series microcontrollers available in PDIP14 package

Please read subject of this thread carefully. It says "faster". Unfortunately mentioned MSP430 mcu's are slower, 16MHz max.

[rsjsouza]

There are actually quite a number of Texas Instruments MSP430 series microcontrollers available in PDIP14 package

Please read subject of this thread carefully. It says "faster". Unfortunately mentioned MSP430 mcu's are slower, 16MHz max.

Huh?!? I mentioned MSP430G series above as well. The original post mentions a 8MIPS 8bit microcontroller, thus a 16MIPS one is surely faster in most (if not all) scenarios.

[jhpadjustable]

There are actually quite a number of Texas Instruments MSP430 series microcontrollers available in PDIP14 package

Please read subject of this thread carefully. It says "faster". Unfortunately mentioned MSP430 mcu's are slower, 16MHz max.

PIC enhanced mid-range cores take 4 clocks per instruction cycle. The MSP430 I've looked at lately take 1 clock per instruction cycle.

[ogden]

The original post mentions a 8MIPS 8bit microcontroller, thus a 16MIPS one is surely faster in most (if not all) scenarios.

Oh, Right. PIC is not RISC 1-cycle/instruction MCU, I forgot that. At 32MHz it is slower than 16MHz msp430. Anyway I do not agree suggesting just 2x faster MCU when it is not known - it will be enough for the task or not. Better learn some ARM chip where you have virtually unlimited performance upgrade path, if we ignore PDIP14 requirement for a moment. I doubt OP will live in the "DIP through-hole camp" for a long time..

[Jan Audio]

I also still have windows XP.
If i stop DIP they will go broke.
Save DIP by buying.

[NorthGuy]

Measuring performance in MHz is not very good idea. What's important is what the MCU can do in the alloted time. This certainly depends on the clock speed, but this also depends on the instruction set and on what you're doing and how you do it.

[ogden]

I also still have windows XP.

Houston, we have a problem

[schmitt trigger]

Windows XP?

But....why?

[jhpadjustable]

Does anyone else feel a sudden urge to upgrade their home lab's capabilities to BGA/WLCSP levels?

[cv007]

Since there are no numbers attached to 'faster', maybe all you need is 'a little faster'. You can probably do a little overclocking to get a little faster. Not sure how the pll will feel about something >8MHz coming in, but it would probably be worth the 10 minutes to play around. You can start by going all the way- 16MHz internal w/pll 4x, then work your way down which then requires an external clock or crystal. Maybe 12MHz (Fosc/4) vs 8MHz is 'faster' enough. Maybe the pic does not like any of it. Easy enough to find out. (I have tested this on a newer/similar pic16f, but I don't remember what the result was)

If this was something important, then you don't have to even consider doing something like that, and there are plenty of other mcu's that can do the job 'faster'. But if not so important, why not.

[Jan Audio]

No i "upgraded" my DSPIC also with max finetuning, wouldnt reccomend, getting weird noises on the audio, dont know why.

It would be a nice non-solderable winter-upgrade for my new project if there was a faster PIC16 port & pin compatible.
Asking for stuff that dont exists is my normal behaviour.

Winter is to cold to solder, winter is programming time.

[NorthGuy]

Winter is to cold to solder ...

Soldering is warm, even hot

[wnorcott]

OK I am going to stand by my original recommendation to look through the MSP430 product set in PDIP-14.  I think it more than stacks up against the PIC-16 in that same package form factor that you are using now.

MSP430G2231IN14    62 nanosecond instruction cycle
PIC161704               125 nsec instruction cycle

From the datasheets.   Sure looks like the MSP430 part is a “faster DIP14” chip to me.  2X faster, since it takes half as long to execute an Instruction. Cycle time is what matters not clock speed. That and instruction width:  the MSP-430 is a 16-bit processor, your current Pic “16” is an 8-bit processor.

Not that speed is everything there is also the development stack, the depth of the user community, depth of technical  support by the manufacturer.  I happen to think TI wins there too, but others may differ.

Hope this helps and if it does, You’re welcome.

[macboy]

The original post mentions a 8MIPS 8bit microcontroller, thus a 16MIPS one is surely faster in most (if not all) scenarios.

Oh, Right. PIC is not RISC, I forgot that. At 32MHz it is slower than 16MHz msp430. Anyway I do not agree suggesting just 2x faster MCU when it is not known - it will be enough for the task or not. Better learn some ARM chip where you have virtually unlimited performance upgrade path, if we ignore PDIP14 requirement for a moment. I doubt OP will live in the "DIP through-hole camp" for a long time..

PIC Micros are absolutely RISC. With only 35 instructions (midrange line) how could you call it anything else? It's also a Harvard architecture. But yes, it is exactly 4 clocks per instruction and no pipelining. That is a performance killer. Long ago a company called Ubicom (then Scenix, then Paralax) created a direct clone of a PIC called SX. Same instruction set, but pipelined, so 1 clock per instruction. And up to 100 MHz... In late 90's/early 2000's. But I digress.

TLDR: PIC is the very definition of RISC with 35 instructions.

[ogden]

PIC Micros are absolutely RISC. With only 35 instructions (midrange line) how could you call it anything else?

Crap? 

[edit] BTW msp430 is more "RISC" than pic because those have only 27 instructions

[rsjsouza]

No i "upgraded" my DSPIC also with max finetuning, wouldnt reccomend, getting weird noises on the audio, dont know why.

It seems you may need a microcontroller with DMA for the audio transfers - the CPU is freed. Not DIP, but the MSP430FR5959 has reasonable specs (TSSOP 38 pins is not hard to solder). An example on a bigger part is shown here (I think there may be others in their software package).

Or, if you want to ditch the DMA but have ADC/DAC and some signal conditioning in a (relatively) small package (LQFP 48 or TSSOP 38 pins are not hard to solder), check the MSP430FR2355.

[westfw]

Msp430 is unabashedly CISC, and I don’t think it does most of its instructions in a single cycle...  (well, perhaps not “unabashedly.”  The datasheet says “risc.”  But it has direct to memory operations with complex addressing modes!  Humph.


It’s sufficiently different from a PIC that speed comparisons would need to be really careful.
(“Single cycle REGISTER operations”)


(Edited w corrections)

[wnorcott]

Msp430 is unabashedly CISC, and I don’t think it does most of its instructions in a single cycle...  (well, perhaps not “unabashedly.”  The datasheet says “risc.”  But it has direct to memory operations with complex addressing modes!  Humph.


It’s sufficiently different from a PIC that speed comparisons would need to be really careful.
(“Single cycle REGISTER operations”)


(Edited w corrections)

MSP430 the 16-bit low end one is CISC because it has some complex instructions, but has only 27 instructions. Anything you see beyond 27 is an emulated instruction i.e. an assembler macro not a machine instruction.  That is certainly reduced instruction count. It uses the venerable Digital PDP-11 instruction set.  I agree with you it is hard to compare by looking at MIPS, MIPS does not tell the story

For a 16 bit architecture with reduced address space PDP-11/MSP430 is a fantastic instruction set very usable in assembly language.   The indirect addressing with increment is for managing tables in memory.    The PIC16 has the trappings of a RISC instruction set but none of the performance benefits because the hardware has no pipelining.  Neither does MSP430 but the TI chip does not need it.   You get much more done per instruction cycle in the MSP30 even though its instructions take differing number of clock cycles. Sure it is easy to calculate a PIC16, 32 MHz clock @ 4 clocks per instruction is 8 MIPS.   A MSP instruction is doing a whole lot more than a PIC instruction once you get past the easy load/store and set/clear bits instructions they both have.   Memory to memory with all the addressing modes makes some instructions quite powerful and useful. The C Programming Language echoes PDP-11 concepts in many aspects.   Many MSP430 instructions  do more take more than one clock cycle, yes, but all of the PIC instructions even the dumb ones ( and most of them are quite dumb ) take 4 cycles. 

[NorthGuy]

Msp430 is unabashedly CISC, and I don’t think it does most of its instructions in a single cycle...  (well, perhaps not “unabashedly.”  The datasheet says “risc.”  But it has direct to memory operations with complex addressing modes! 

When people sell something, they use buzz-words. PIC16 datasheets also say it's RISC (at least they used to).

RISC is a bad thing actually. RISC eliminates many useful commands to make pipelining easier. The price they pay is that you need more RISC instructions where you could get away with a single CISC instruction. This may (or may not) be of benefit if you have long pipelines and caches, but since small MCUs do not use (and do not need) long pipelines and caches, RISC would only increase the size of the program and decrease speed.

But RISC works well as a buzz-word.

[NorthGuy]

Memory to memory with all the addressing modes makes some instructions quite powerful and useful.

If instruction takes n slots to encode and executes in n cycles, it is practically the same as n instructions. How's that more powerful than n separate instructions?

[rsjsouza]

Memory to memory with all the addressing modes makes some instructions quite powerful and useful.

If instruction takes n slots to encode and executes in n cycles, it is practically the same as n instructions. How's that more powerful than n separate instructions?

It surely would have a comparable execution speed, but since the word "powerful" is a very wide umbrella, to me the readability and maintainability are worth the increased complexity in a single opcode. Obviously others will disagree.

RISC and CISC are in fact buzzwords that try to fit the complexities of every processing task in the world into only two buckets. I couldn't refrain from laughing when, many years ago, someone from a Si manufacturer was arguing with me how their DSP was a RISC machine, despite its assembly was massively complex.

[jhpadjustable]

RISC is a bad thing actually. RISC eliminates many useful commands to make pipelining easier. The price they pay is that you need more RISC instructions where you could get away with a single CISC instruction. This may (or may not) be of benefit if you have long pipelines and caches, but since small MCUs do not use (and do not need) long pipelines and caches, RISC would only increase the size of the program and decrease speed.

Processor cores do not exist as theoretical constructs in an isolated vacuum. Transistors are very cheap but not free. Are you suggesting that maximum clock rate, cycles per instruction (these first two taken together constituting throughput), die size, power consumption, etc. would remain exactly the same for a CISC processor as for a RISC processor?

I submit to the contrary, that the solution of offloading the grunt work of writing RISC instruction streams to a compiler has been so wildly successful on all counts that very few new "CISC" machines actually execute CISC opcodes natively anymore.

But RISC works well as a buzz-word.

Not that it can't be easily abused, but it has shifted a bit in meaning from the acronym's literal expansion.

It surely would have a comparable execution speed, but since the word "powerful" is a very wide umbrella, to me the readability and maintainability are worth the increased complexity in a single opcode. Obviously others will disagree.

And that's why I use C.

[NorthGuy]

RISC is a bad thing actually. RISC eliminates many useful commands to make pipelining easier. The price they pay is that you need more RISC instructions where you could get away with a single CISC instruction. This may (or may not) be of benefit if you have long pipelines and caches, but since small MCUs do not use (and do not need) long pipelines and caches, RISC would only increase the size of the program and decrease speed.

Processor cores do not exist as theoretical constructs in an isolated vacuum. Transistors are very cheap but not free. Are you suggesting that maximum clock rate, cycles per instruction (these first two taken together constituting throughput), die size, power consumption, etc. would remain exactly the same for a CISC processor as for a RISC processor?

I don't know why you think I suggested this, but, of course, on the high end encoding isn't very critical. CISC will give you better code density, RISC will give you better pipelining. At any rate, the CPU shuffles everything, changes execution order, makes its own decisions, so the command encoding is unlikely to change anything. By the time ARM gets to the level as x64, it'll be approximately the same in most respects.

The small MCUs are dramatically different - you need it real-time, optimized for the worst case (not for average throughput), you also want short interrupt latency. In addition the commands are fetched from the flash and there's a hard limit how fast this can be done. In such environment, CISC (big instructions and short pipelines) is much better than RISC (small instructions and long pipelines).

[ogden]

MSP430 seemingly fail to classify as RISC due to direct memory access instructions (thus no load/store architecture). PIC16 fail to classify as RISC because 1) have direct memory access instructions as well 2) do not meet "single instruction per cycle" RISC property. PIC also lacks multiple equal use registers. ARM cores supporting both 32-bit and 16-bit (Thumb) instructions also do not strictly qualify as RISC anymore In short: take each CPU as it is and do not waste time classifying them because lines became blurred over time.