Prev: USB device driver / LPC board
Next: ARM: JTAG problem on developed ARM board
From: moogyd on 17 Sep 2009 04:05
Hi,

I am looking at selecting a processor for our SoC platform. Currently
we use an embedded 8051 core (small, low power, low performance,
cheap).

For our next project, we need more performance, and we are also trying
to create a platform suitable for all future projects.

The CPU must be available as RTL (VHDL or Verilog) source.

Obviously, there are lots of options
- Faster 8051
- 16-bit ?
- 32-bit RISC (ARM Cortext M0, ARC 6XXX, OpenRISC)

There are also lots of issues to consider
- Power uW/MHz
- Area
- Performance
- Cost/Licensing
- Support and tools
-
Can anyone point to any data (comparisons) that would be useful in
making a decision.

Thanks,

Steven



From: TTman on 17 Sep 2009 04:17

"moogyd" <moogyd(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34da4e9f-a88f-408a-a42e-0b1fa9434e4a(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at selecting a processor for our SoC platform. Currently
> we use an embedded 8051 core (small, low power, low performance,
> cheap).
>
> For our next project, we need more performance, and we are also trying
> to create a platform suitable for all future projects.
>
> The CPU must be available as RTL (VHDL or Verilog) source.
>
> Obviously, there are lots of options
> - Faster 8051
> - 16-bit ?
> - 32-bit RISC (ARM Cortext M0, ARC 6XXX, OpenRISC)
>
> There are also lots of issues to consider
> - Power uW/MHz
> - Area
> - Performance
> - Cost/Licensing
> - Support and tools
> -
> Can anyone point to any data (comparisons) that would be useful in
> making a decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steven
>
>
>
Maxim DS89C450 is super fast 51 core,with ISP via com Txd/Rxd


From: moogyd on 17 Sep 2009 04:48
On Sep 17, 10:17 am, "TTman" <someone...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "moogyd" <moo...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:34da4e9f-a88f-408a-a42e-0b1fa9434e4a(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I am looking at selecting a processor for our SoC platform. Currently
> > we use an embedded 8051 core (small, low power, low performance,
> > cheap).
>
> > For our next project, we need more performance, and we are also trying
> > to create a platform suitable for all future projects.
>
> > The CPU must be available as RTL (VHDL or Verilog) source.
>
> > Obviously, there are lots of options
> > - Faster 8051
> > - 16-bit ?
> > - 32-bit RISC (ARM Cortext M0, ARC 6XXX, OpenRISC)
>
> > There are also lots of issues to consider
> > - Power uW/MHz
> > - Area
> > - Performance
> > - Cost/Licensing
> > - Support and tools
> > -
> > Can anyone point to any data (comparisons) that would be useful in
> > making a decision.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Steven
>
> Maxim DS89C450 is super fast 51 core,with ISP via com Txd/Rxd

A little bit of clarification (as a H/W designer, I realize that my
use of the word embedded is not the same as everyone else on the
group)

I need a processor core that I can include within ASIC design (rather
than a separate component).

Thanks,

Steven






From: David Brown on 17 Sep 2009 05:21
moogyd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at selecting a processor for our SoC platform. Currently
> we use an embedded 8051 core (small, low power, low performance,
> cheap).
>
> For our next project, we need more performance, and we are also trying
> to create a platform suitable for all future projects.
>
> The CPU must be available as RTL (VHDL or Verilog) source.
>
> Obviously, there are lots of options
> - Faster 8051
> - 16-bit ?
> - 32-bit RISC (ARM Cortext M0, ARC 6XXX, OpenRISC)
>
> There are also lots of issues to consider
> - Power uW/MHz
> - Area
> - Performance
> - Cost/Licensing
> - Support and tools
> -
> Can anyone point to any data (comparisons) that would be useful in
> making a decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steven
>

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.
From: -jg on 17 Sep 2009 05:26
On Sep 17, 8:48 pm, moogyd <moo...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> A little bit of clarification (as a H/W designer, I realize that my
> use of the word embedded is not the same as everyone else on the
> group)
>
> I need a processor core that I can include within ASIC design (rather
> than a separate component).

First, decide if an 8051 will still do the task.

This is a topical starting point, for a functional mock-up :

http://www.cypress.com/?id=2232

and, for ARM, this pathway should also be looked at

http://www.atmel.com/products/at91cap/default.asp

-jg
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: USB device driver / LPC board
Next: ARM: JTAG problem on developed ARM board