Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Although they are good cores and they are suitable for a big range of application if you need professional platform the best solution is hitachi microcontroller family,bye Stark.
Thanks for reply, i think so; but we are looking for a low cost (1 dollar, 1.5 dollar), and low power consumption devices. Our choice was Atmel and PIC, what do you think?.
I think both perform well.
Choose your device on your requirements(I/O and Perif.) and check the lowest price.
Both are well supported for programming in C, Basic or Assembler. Both have a lot of circuits flying around for easy and cheap to make programmers as well as software to download to the controller.
I prefer PIC because I'm more familiar with them and the assembler used by Microchip, but I think it is just a matter of spending time to get familiarised with the Atmels.
Important is that a PIC running on 4 Mhz actually is running internally on 1 Mhz(divide by 4), which is not the case for Atmel.
You'll find that the Atmel AVR is easier to work with in general, though there is a larger 'net presense for the PIC. I find AVR support and resources to be perfectly fine though, and there are many projects out there with them.
The main thing is the non-pages memory - I *hate* that obsolete architecture that the PIC uses. The one-clockcycle/one-instruction deal with the AVR is pretty nice too
IMHO both of them are good. I started with PIC, couple of years ago, I started to be more oriented to Atmel, because Microchip did not have any bigger uC with FLASH memory.
Now, when I need I2C or I need to write program in ASM, I use PICs. When I need to write program in C, I use Atmel.
I have used both Atmel and PIC and both have merits and the community support is good. Lately I have leaned toward Atmel because of the ease when working with the boot loading flash parts. Also, I found the dev tools a little cheaper and better engineered - particularily when working in C. Just my opinion though.
C'mon guys, 12X 14X 16X PICa are archaic and very cumbersome in terms of architecture. As far as i know what made them so popular is that they were the first microcontrollers to go that small in package and price.
the pics are cheaper. the atmel seems more elegant.
the "old" architecture of the pics (i.e. changing manually the page bank) is well handled by the compilers (basic or c). that's only if you want to use the assembler.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.