Best bang-for-buck uC

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
IMHO the best bang-for-buck uP available right now is the ATTiny85.  
Luxurious 8K of program memory, 512 bytes RAM, 512 bytes flash, 4 ADC  
channels, 2 hardware PWM outputs, 20 MHz clock @ 5 volts.

Under a buck in quantity at Mouser:

<http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Microchip-Technology-Atmel/ATtiny85-20SU/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtkfMPOFRTOlzm3F7l5sNgt>

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 9:49:39 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wait...how do you get 8K program memory and 512b of flash?

Not necessarily the best bang for the buck, but that NXP 8 pin ARM (or now, "arm") is intriguing.

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
Well, the Silicon Labs EFM88B goes for 15 cents in high volume  

Not easy to make a all parts final judgement like this

Cheers

Klaus  

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 08/25/2017 09:20 AM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

8051 core? GROSS.

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
bitrex wrote on 8/25/2017 10:00 AM:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Judging engineering by emotions again?  That's ok, we all do it even when we  
think we are being logical.

--  

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,dd
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 08/25/2017 11:15 AM, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Also the fact AFAIK there's not a decent HLL compiler for that core you  
won't pay out the ass for. Hope you like asm...

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
bitrex wrote on 8/25/2017 11:33 AM:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I prefer the many excellent free tools for embedded CPUs.  There is no  
shortage of Forth compilers for the 8051.

--  

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 08/25/2017 11:41 AM, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The other advantage the newer products like AVR and ARM have over the  
older cores is that they have an ISA and architecture which was designed  
from the ground up to allow HLL compilers to generate tight code.  
There's no dedicated accumulator, nearly every register can also perform  
that function. And there are enough registers that the compiler can  
often decide to cache frequently-accessed variables there permanently so  
it never has to load/store them from RAM.

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
bitrex wrote on 8/25/2017 11:59 AM:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And yet they still function quite well.  None of these issues are important  
by themselves.  No one evaluates processors by measuring the details of code  
density or even performance per MHz.  If a CPU will do the job it is a  
candidate.  It may need more space for the code, but as long as a given  
price MCU will hold the app, it's a win!

--  

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 25/08/17 17:41, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And are these 8051 Forth tools free, full-featured, and do they generate
efficient compiled code?  Do they have modern IDE's and debuggers?  Do
they support the huge range of 8051 variations with different memory
types, double accumulators, extensions, etc.?

I don't know the answer here, I am just asking.

SDCC is a reasonable C compiler for the 8051, and is entirely free.  It
does not generate as tight code as the massively expensive ones, but it
is (apparently) OK.  My experience with "top-class" 8051 C compilers has
been poor - the code may be efficient, but the C compliance has been bad.

Given the choice, I would never choose to use an 8051 core - or any
similarly brain-dead and outdated ISA.  That would apply even if I were
programming in Forth or assembly - there are so many good ISA's around,
that it makes no sense to pick such a bad one unless the choice of
peripherals on the microcontroller are overwhelming.


Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 08/28/2017 10:44 AM, David Brown wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The huge advantage of the AVR/ARM architectures is the free-as-in-free  
and free-as-in-beer availability of efficient, regularly-maintained HLL  
compilers with excellent compliance to the language standards, e.g. the  
GNU AVR and ARM embedded toolchains.

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 28/08/17 17:12, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I fully agree.

Another reason is that those architectures are ones for which such
toolchains can be made.  You can't make such a C or C++ toolchain for
the 8051 and that class of cpu core.  (The absence of such toolchains,
despite the widespread use of the 8051, bears witness to that.  SDCC is
an impressive project, but not of the class of gcc.)



Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
Quoted text here. Click to load it
the 8051 and that  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just as the absence of aftermarket turbo kits for the Hillman Minx proves t
hat can't be done either.  ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
David Brown wrote on 8/28/2017 10:44 AM:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't know either.  The free Forth tools tend not to have debuggers as  
Forth lends itself well to debugger free development.  But any language can  
be used with Eclipse if I am not mistaken.  So then you have a debugger.

Not sure what you mean about supporting the "range" of 8051s.  If the 8051  
doesn't use the same code, it really isn't an 8051.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your use of the terms "brain-dead" and "outdated" shows you have an  
emotional connection to this decision.  These are not engineering terms.  
You know little about the CPU but are rejecting it for not having the image  
you want from your CPUs.  The only issue is whether the device meets the  
requirements of the project.  As has been stated, the 8051 is the only CPU  
that can meet certain project requirements that some users have.

--  

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 02/09/17 07:16, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You can certainly use Eclipse for editing any language (at least,
anything written in plain ASCII.  APL probably needs an extension), and
there are plugins for language syntax highlighting and other tools for
lots of languages (again, I don't know about Forth).  But that does
/not/ mean you can debug the language - that requires support for the
language in the debugger.  Eclipse can act as an interface to gdb, and
gdb supports a number of languages (assembly, C, C++, Fortran, Go, Rust,
Ada, etc.).  Other languages like Python are also supported with the
right plugins.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are lots of variants of the 8051, with different types and sizes
of memory, extra registers, extra instructions, etc.  They share a
common core ISA, but there are lots of details that are important if you
want to have efficient code.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is not emotional - I just don't like them!  ("outdated" is factual,
"brain-dead" is opinion.)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know more than enough about 8051's to dislike them and to reject them
given the choice.  The decision is based on fact as well as personal
preference.  I /have/ used them occasionally - because sometimes I am
/not/ given the choice.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, that is not the only issue.  It is certainly an important issue - it
is a requirement, obviously.  But once you have established that a
project can be handled by microcontrollers A, B and C, then you have to
choose between them.  Many factors come into play, including price,
power, availability, ease of development, flexibility - different
weightings will be used for different projects.  8051 cores score low on
all of these.  So, as I said, given the choice I would generally pick
something other than an 8051.  (If the choice was 8051, COP8 or PIC16,
it would be a harder decision.)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

In which case there would be no /choice/.  That is what "choice" means!



Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:33:36 PM UTC+2, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am using a C compiler now on that core, nothing to complain about yet

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:00:49 -0400, bitrex

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Pretty stout @ 50Mhz.  Should suffice for small applications.

Not happy, use  a PIC.

Cheers

Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 06:20:17 -0700 (PDT), Klaus Kragelund

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Fine if you make singing greeting cards, or maybe even it could handle
a toaster.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On 08/25/2017 11:31 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I should have qualified it as "if you need to do any kind of real work."  
As another poster mentioned you can get msp430s for ~33 cents in  
thousands, with 512 bytes of program memory. That might be enough to run  
a greeting card.


Re: Best bang-for-buck uC
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:41:43 -0400, bitrex

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I used to do serious stuff in 1K bytes, assembly on a 6803, but that
was a hassle. Unless the million-piece price matters, something more
reasonable, like an LPC1758 maybe, can do some serious signal
crunching.


--  

John Larkin   Highland Technology, Inc   trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline