Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
tomeq
User Rank
Rookie
re: DCD's DT8051 powerful, tiny 8-bit CPU
tomeq   11/7/2012 7:37:13 AM
NO RATINGS
I think that 4000 gates is something which makes the difference. I would agree that 400 or 40 gates could be statistic error, but 4k, especially in 8051 could be useful. When someone's licensing ARM, he surely gonna stick to that. But what about thousands or millions of designs based on 8051? Wouldn't be interesting replace good, old fashion 8051 with DT8051 which consumes less energy, less area and gives 8x higher performance. When you drive to job, you don't need a Ferrrari car - speed limits and traffic jams will kill the joy of driving that dream from Maranello. And re the proprietary stuff which is being offered with DT8051. As it is 100% compatible with 8051 standard, you can use all the tools you have for 51. And if DCD offers extra, proprietary tools, which can boost your design - I can only say: gimme more.

MCUBob
User Rank
Rookie
re: DCD's DT8051 powerful, tiny 8-bit CPU
MCUBob   11/6/2012 7:30:05 PM
NO RATINGS
So, the difference is 4000 gate counts, whatever gate counts are as there are several ways to count them. If a company doesn't have a license for the Cortex-M0(+) it can be interesting indeed. On the other hand, the silicon size difference in a .18 um process is just about 0.1 mm2, sometimes this fraction of a cent lower cost might make a difference. However, possibilities with an ARM core are endless and many companies have been using ARM M-cores for a few years and probably don't want to head this step back. Some data is missing in this article; what is the power consumption of this core? If it can beat the M0+, the lowest power MSP430s, PICs or AVRs that can make a difference. If not, I doubt this core will fly just because it offers the lowest advertised gate count. Power, licensing costs and support for the propriety debugging interface are not covered in this article. The additional information on the DCD webpage shows support from all the known 51 compiler vendors as expected for a binary compatible core. It also shows the propriety debugger interface that depends on the also propriety hardware DCD hardware assisted debugger. All this propriety stuff for what they claim a standard core? Been there and done that, using an almost standard 51. Won't do it again. Robert



Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Are Today's Designs Bound by the Constraints of Yesteryear?
Max Maxfield
14 comments
As part of my ongoing Pedagogical and Phantasmagorical Inamorata Prognostication Engine project (try saying that 10 times quickly), I'm working with Jason Dueck from Instrument Meter ...

Jolt Judges and Andrew Binstock

Jolt Awards: The Best Books
Jolt Judges and Andrew Binstock
1 Comment
As we do every year, Dr. Dobb's recognizes the best books of the last 12 months via the Jolt Awards -- our cycle of product awards given out every two months in each of six categories. No ...

Engineering Investigations

Air Conditioner Falls From Window, Still Works
Engineering Investigations
2 comments
It's autumn in New England. The leaves are turning to red, orange, and gold, my roses are in their second bloom, and it's time to remove the air conditioner from the window. On September ...

David Blaza

The Other Tesla
David Blaza
5 comments
I find myself going to Kickstarter and Indiegogo on a regular basis these days because they have become real innovation marketplaces. As far as I'm concerned, this is where a lot of cool ...