I don't really know much about which cpu cores are available for such chips, but if you can get it the AVR core would be a good choice for a small low-power embeddable core. It's much faster (for similar power/size/clocks) than 8051, and has much broader tool support. However, if you are looking forward towards the future and bigger cores, there are many ARM cores to choose from. Other embeddable cores with wide tool support are MIPS and ColdFire (certainly ColdFire v1).
An 8051 core is a good choice if the cpu is very much a minor part of the device, and is only there to make the SoC a little more flexible. It is not good at any speed if you want to do any real processing work.
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
Designed for Microcontrollers. More than 7000 downloads per month.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by TÜV as meeting the requirements for safety related systems
AFAIK, the AVR core is very much designed as a macro for ASICs, and that is the main market for Atmel. Whether or not they will provide the core to others is a very different question - the OP would obviously have to ask Atmel about that.
Of course, I could be wrong about the AVR and ASICs, or perhaps it only applied to the core's early history.
However, these people appear to make ASICs with AVR cores:
I work for ARM so my choice is certainly bias towards ARM cores. But the following information might be useful for you.
Faster 8051
8051 IP cores are cheap, but as you can see the performance is limiting. The fastest 8051 IP claimed their Dhrystone DMIPS is 0.1/MHz (but many others are much slower). But you need to be careful as this often require special compiler support or C libraries that make use of the extra features. If using standard 8051 instruction set and features you would get a lower performance.
Due to the lower performance you might end up clocking the core faster and hence getting higher power consumption. And in highend 8051 cores, the register banks are implemented as D-flip-flop rather than SRAM (32
8-bit registers, to allows single cycle execution of instructions). As a result the gate count of the high-end 8051 can be quite large.
16-bit There are not too many commerical 16-bit processors. Most of them are proprietary architecture and therefor the choice of compiler tools are limited. The performance is several times better than 8051 but mostly still less than half of ARM processors. Most of the 16-bit processors has a Dhrystone DMIPS from 0.3/MHz to 0.5/MHz.
The biggest problem you will find with 16-bit core is the 64kbyte memory limitation. Some 16-bit architectures has workaround for this by allow paging or segmentation of memory map but it will reduce the efficiency. If your application requires more than 64kbytes or will expand in the future, switching to ARM would be a better choice.
ARM Cortex-M0 High performance at small size : Dhrystone DMIPS 0.9/MHz. Smaller than most 16-bit cores and very good code density (smaller code size than
16-bit cores and 8-bit cores).
formatting link
There are large number of choices for C compilers and debug tools, and certainly future proof (e.g. tools, memory expansion). The processor comes with debug features and an integration kit is included to help design.
More details of Cortex-M0 can be found here:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
If you want more technical details feel free to contact us directly or let me know. You can try out Cortex-M0 using our Microcontroller Prototyping System (MPS) without any NDA (details on
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.