Atmel Introduces World's smallest Microcontrollers?
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: 20 Carat Diamond - Will Your Wife Be Happy Now?
Next: EMBEDDED DESIGN - MICROCHIP MCU's & DEVELOPMENT TOOLS - ENERGY/POWER METERS
From: Bill Giovino on 23 May 2010 19:42 Update to http://microcontroller.com/news/Atmel_smallest.asp The uDFN package has not yet been characterized by Atmel. http://microcontroller.com/Atmel.htm Bill Giovino http://Microcontroller.com
From: Bill Giovino on 28 May 2010 14:09 Package HAS been characterized and the article updated. http://microcontroller.com/news/Atmel_smallest.asp http://microcontroller.com/Atmel.htm "Bill Giovino" wrote... > Update to http://microcontroller.com/news/Atmel_smallest.asp > > The uDFN package has not yet been characterized by Atmel. > http://microcontroller.com/Atmel.htm > > > Bill Giovino > http://Microcontroller.com > > >
From: rickman on 28 May 2010 17:12 On May 14, 5:00 pm, "Bill Giovino" <contac...(a)microcontroller.com> wrote: > http://microcontroller.com/news/Atmel_smallest.asp > > Teeny tiny uDFN package that is only 2mm on each side. I wonder why the MCU market is so different from the FPGA market? Seems the MCUs are all trying to get smaller and smaller with more and more in the package. FPGAs seem to demand high pin counts and so they either are in huge packages or BGAs with very fine ball pitch. Is there just no real market for medium capacity FPGAs in low pin count, cost effective packaging? I would love to get up to 10,000 LUTs in a 48 TQFP or even a similar QFN. At this time I would settle for even 1,000 LUTs in a 32 to 48 pin TQFP or QFN. Rick
From: -jg on 29 May 2010 03:54 On May 29, 9:12 am, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I wonder why the MCU market is so different from the FPGA market? > Seems the MCUs are all trying to get smaller and smaller with more and > more in the package. FPGAs seem to demand high pin counts and so they > either are in huge packages or BGAs with very fine ball pitch. Is > there just no real market for medium capacity FPGAs in low pin count, > cost effective packaging? I would love to get up to 10,000 LUTs in a > 48 TQFP or even a similar QFN. At this time I would settle for even > 1,000 LUTs in a 32 to 48 pin TQFP or QFN. > > Rick Good question - some of the tier-2 players, do have offerings in QFN, but the main players I think have become victims of their own success. To open new markets, leading edge FPGAs have to get ever more dense, and that pushes into BGA packages. Once they are over the BGA hurdle, it is not easy to get back. Some systems NEED those low L paths, and high layer counts. Those that want a TQFP48, also want a uC area price, and there is not enough revenue, to fund the development. Another indicator, is CPLDs have seen remarkably little new R&D over the last 5 years. The Cypress PSoC are interesting, but their published prices (peak over $20) really charge a premium above a CPLD+Generic uC - so they target a niche, not the mass market. -jg
From: Mike Harrison on 29 May 2010 07:46
On Sat, 29 May 2010 00:54:27 -0700 (PDT), -jg <jim.granville(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 29, 9:12�am, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I wonder why the MCU market is so different from the FPGA market? >> Seems the MCUs are all trying to get smaller and smaller with more and >> more in the package. �FPGAs seem to demand high pin counts and so they >> either are in huge packages or BGAs with very fine ball pitch. �Is >> there just no real market for medium capacity FPGAs in low pin count, >> cost effective packaging? �I would love to get up to 10,000 LUTs in a >> 48 TQFP or even a similar QFN. �At this time I would settle for even >> 1,000 LUTs in a 32 to 48 pin TQFP or QFN. >> >> Rick > > Good question - some of the tier-2 players, do have offerings in QFN, >but the main players I think have become victims of their own success. > > To open new markets, leading edge FPGAs have to get ever more dense, >and that pushes into BGA packages. > Once they are over the BGA hurdle, it is not easy to get back. Some >systems NEED those low L paths, and high layer counts. > > Those that want a TQFP48, also want a uC area price, and there is not >enough revenue, to fund the development. > Another indicator, is CPLDs have seen remarkably little new R&D over >the last 5 years. > > The Cypress PSoC are interesting, but their published prices (peak >over $20) really charge a premium above a CPLD+Generic uC - so they >target a niche, not the mass market. >-jg The XMOS parts may fill a few gaps here. |