Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts selection matrix is included.
- Bill Giovino Executive Editor
Up to 40MIPS performance, up to 256Kbytes Flash, a 23-bit address bus, and Microchip's benchmarks show that it's faster than the Infineon C16X. A parts selection matrix is included.
- Bill Giovino Executive Editor
Re: Microchip Introduces First 16-bit Microcontroller Product Line - the PIC24
Of course, I mean MICROCHIP's *first* 16-bit microcontroller...
Maybe someone should tell Microchip about the XC166 ? [Oh yes, that would make the Pic24 look worse, so that's why they'll be keen to compare with a 15 year old core.... ]
-jg
Err, isn't this just a subset/respin of the dsPIC, so it't not actually even Microchip's first 16 bit controller ?
[ but facts never get in the way of a good marketing banner...]-jg
ouch... hammer that 'marketing'.. touchee
parts
They mean of course "their" first 16 microcontroller product..
shame.. I guess they gave up with the 8 bit trash and are now attempting to poison the 16 bit market
Just another "me too product".. probably have to wait another 2 years for a useable c compiler to boot...
Ouch! I see more sleepless nights for PIC Programmer code writers.
Don...
-- Don McKenzie E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.e-dotcom.com/ecp.php?un=Dontronics
In article , Bill Giovino writes
SO just as the 16 bit market is declining Microchip enter it.
The 8 bit parts are getting more powerful and thanks to ARM the 32 bit ones a lot less expensive. The 16 bit market is on the decline.
There are a few well entrenched parts that will go on for some time but now is not the time to introduce a new 16 bit family.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
I wish some of the other micro producers would give as comprehensive a coverage as Microchip. Their core architecture may be foul, but the selection of packages (including DIP), peripherals, operating voltages, and availability of development stuff leaves me utterly jealous.
Paul Burke
Especially for the vile arhitecture.
Why, the 8051 has it beaten every way.
Ian
It makes sense to me. Put out a migration path for your users that want a bit more processing power so they won't look elsewhere. Keeps the loyalty and money in their pocket.
Jim
Microchip sucks. I can't understand how come someone is paying 3.65 EUR for a PIC16F77, when an Atmel ATmega48 can be bought for 1.21 EUR. (DigiKey, 100 pcs). The PIC is sheer crap compared to the AVR. I didn't know so many rednecks were using MCUs. Otherwise, I can't understand Microchip's survival.
Infineon C16X? What are you talking about? That is also sheer crap. Get a life, and use any ARM7 (Philips, Atmel, TI, ...) or even a 24xx TI DSP for a lower price.
Professionals solve problems and take advantage of the properties of a "strange" architecture.
Amatures bellyache about everything to distract others from the fact that they cannot compete with professionals.
Regards Sergio Masci
Surely you jest. It's architecture is orders of magnitude less vile than that of the PIC and its bit oriented instructions are a boon.
Ian
The first time I used an 8051, I thought it was the most convoluted piece of crap that had ever been devised.
Until I ran across the PIC, which would be a total waste of beach sand if Microchip didn't support it so well.
Regards,
-=Dave
-- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Never used it's predecessor, the 8048, eh? After the 8048, the
8051 seemed like a PDP-11.
So far, I've avoided the PIC, but I still have "fond" memories of shuffling 8048 assembly language code around to try to get the page boundaries in the right places.
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Civilization is at fun! Anyway, it keeps
Sounds just like the fun of juggling AVR code around to get all the relative branches in range.....
branches in range.....
Worse. The 8048 did branches by just shoving the lower 8 bits of the target address into the PC-- so even code that "looked" very close might not be within range, and if you added or subtracted one instruction near the beginning of the code it could affect (break) branches throughout the rest of the program. The 8051 replaced that with relative branches.
Nice code density, though.
Say, is there anyone programming the ARM7 in assembly?
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
-- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
And it seems like it usually did...
Just the usual bits of RTOS glue and things like an IP checksum routine (it was surprisingly difficult to beat the BSD stack's C version).
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! My haircut is totally at traditional!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.