Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
I noticed that there aren't any masked ROM versions of the ATMEL AVR
processors, only Flash ones. This means that PIC has a substantial cost
benefit in consumer electronics, especially large volumes. Do you guys find
this a problem?



Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions
: I noticed that there aren't any masked ROM versions of the ATMEL AVR
: processors, only Flash ones. This means that PIC has a substantial cost
: benefit in consumer electronics, especially large volumes.

Not really true (anymore.) Hence no ROM version of AVR.
OTOH, what is true is that the AVR ALU is inherently
bigger and more costly than your typical dinosaur...ehhh...
accumulator based microcontroller like 8051, HC05 and PIC.

: Do you guys find this a problem?

No. You get what you pay for.
But of course, blinken-LEDs is not exactly AVR's prime market...
Was there anything else?

--
  ******************************************************
  Never ever underestimate the power of human stupidity.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Neither are appropriate in most cases..

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions

Quoted text here. Click to load it
find

And why not? Samsung uses its 8-bit controllers in its microwaves, and Sony
does the same thing with their 8-bit MCU's. Neither are more capable than a
Microchip or Atmel part IMHO. And MicroChip and Atmel have a sizeable user
community and cheap/free development tools.



Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They are almost always more expensive (per unit, all things such as
peripherals considered) than the typical micros used in consumer
electronics. The ease of use and cost of the development system is of
little significance in such applications; overall production cost is
all-important. The low-end PICs (16C54 mask type stuff and their
Asian-made clones) have some market share, of course.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions

Quoted text here. Click to load it
find

If you are really looking at such large volumes that masked ROM is a
sensible solution, then you might find that Atmel can put together an ASIC
for your application that is cost-effective.




Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 There are many ROM AVRs, a sizeable chunk of AVR business is
ROM based.
 But I think you meant 'merchant AVRs', and there are two reasons
for that
 - Merchant volumes and design cycles do not warrant ROM
 - Atmel iterate the merchant AVRs too quickly for ROM

 Still, I'm sure if you wanted 10M pcs of any AVR in ROM, you could
get it.

-jg

Re: Atmel vs. PIC: masked versions

Quoted text here. Click to load it
find

No it doesn't.
Consumer electronics companies calculate total cost and that is higher for
ROM chips due to need to throw away bad ROM parts due to changin specs,
increased inventory handling etc.

Plenty of AVR users in tne consumer electronics business!


Quoted text here. Click to load it


No you would get a factory programmed flash chip with the ISP disabled :-)

--
Best Regards
Ulf at atmel dot com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline