Sonsivri
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 04, 2016, 11:20:45 23:20


Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2  All
Print
Author Topic: ATMEL vs PIC  (Read 6632 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« on: April 06, 2006, 09:59:27 21:59 »

I want to start a thread for everyone to write down the what he/she like or not about ATMEL and PIC.
 
First i've used PIC and dinn't wanna hear about Atmel, but I was asked to make a project that need 3/4 PWM channels. For PIC there are only a few options. Flash memory--> a lot more on AVR.
Development tools are very cheap for Atmel.(The most popular STK500 costs about 80$)
So, my first conclusion:
ATMEL + on PWM(betwen 3-16 Channels)
ATMEL + on Flash Memory
ATMEL + on RAM Memory
ATMEL + on Dev Tools prices
ATMEL + on free C compiler(Very popular WinAVR)
ATMEL + on prices(ATMEL MCU's are very cheap and offer a lot of peripherals)
 
I kinda hate to write these down because I love PIC's, but I cannot ignore reality.
Logged

- Brain juice -
swapgo
Newbie
*
 Muted
Offline Offline

Posts: 8

Thank You
-Given: 0
-Receive: 0


« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2006, 11:09:20 11:09 »

I feel ARM is also cheaper than PIC. I mean High end series.
Let us wait and see performance and cost of the 24 series in PIC.
Logged
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2006, 01:25:34 13:25 »

We should also wait for C Compiler for 16Bit Series(PIC24).
Is there any pertinent comparison between these MCU's on the web?
Logged

- Brain juice -
mick
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196

Thank You
-Given: 929
-Receive: 84


« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2006, 01:26:12 13:26 »

This is very nice

"I love PIC's, but I cannot ignore reality."
Logged
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2006, 09:47:20 21:47 »

In C it's really easy for both of them.
The advantage here of Atmel is the bigger flash.
 
Separate vectors of interrupt is a nice thing on Atmel.
Logged

- Brain juice -
max
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223

Thank You
-Given: 602
-Receive: 32


« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2006, 10:02:22 22:02 »

In short there is no comparsion of PICs with the Atmel AVRs in all respect,
features, prices and performance.
Logged

Fate arrived and made the conscious unconscious It silenced the activity of life.
max
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223

Thank You
-Given: 602
-Receive: 32


« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2006, 10:03:23 22:03 »

In short Atmel AVRs are much better than PICs in all respect,
Feature, Price and Performance.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2006, 10:07:22 22:07 by max » Logged

Fate arrived and made the conscious unconscious It silenced the activity of life.
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2006, 12:42:04 12:42 »

Yes! At 16MHz there are 16 MIPS.
In PIC MCU's at 16MHz there are 4MIPS.......
Huge huh:)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 12:44:34 12:44 by tavioman » Logged

- Brain juice -
max
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223

Thank You
-Given: 602
-Receive: 32


« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2006, 11:12:16 23:12 »

Just compare the features of Atmega8 with the Pic16F876A, I am sure you
will prefer mega8, I can buy the 3 pcs of mega8 in the price of single 16F876A
at the local market. Here are some comparisions,

1. all io ports bits of m8 have internal pullups, while in pic only portb
2. when using low voltage isp programming there is no loss of io pin in m8, while in pic
     one io pin is lost.
3. you can use i2c, spi and usart simultaneously in m8, while in pic it is not possible.
4. a2d is much simpler to use in m8 then the pic, also m8 has internal precision reference
5. m8 has 3 pwm channels while pic has 2 channels
6. m8 has 1K of ram, 512 bytes eeprom while in pic 368 ram & 256 bytes eeproms
7. m8 has internal rc oscillators at 1,2,4 and 8Mhz while in pic no internal rc osc.
Logged

Fate arrived and made the conscious unconscious It silenced the activity of life.
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2006, 11:40:34 23:40 »

Yes, your point is really clear.
I've started wondering myself one week ago why did I've used PIC's.
Another good stuff that I like about ATmega is the fact that all ports line are really I/O.
In PIC's some are just In...
One thing though, I don't understand:
Why in the hell the PIC's are more expensive???:eek:
Logged

- Brain juice -
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2006, 11:51:05 23:51 »

One more thing...Smiley
I wanted to make an RGB-;ed dimmer.. So I needed 3 PWM channels.
That was the point when I started looking for something on the net and found Atmel. Smiley)
I was just amazed to see that some MCU's from Atmel have up to 16 PWM channels.
While in PIC's the max number of channels is 5.
For example ATtiny45/85/25 (DIP8) has 4 PWM channels.
There is no PIC in DIP8 with PWM support(only Compare).
Logged

- Brain juice -
fernandodiaz
Junior Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73

Thank You
-Given: 1
-Receive: 18


« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2006, 04:40:11 04:40 »

you need use PIC12f683  8pin  1 pwm

and DSpic30f3010 very powered
Logged
Zaphod Beeblebrox
V.I.P
Active Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Thank You
-Given: 13
-Receive: 93



« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2006, 11:37:13 23:37 »

It sounds like a start of another flame war :rolleyes:
OK guys, I've been using professionally Microchip stuff along with ARM7. In the beginning I had to decide the way to go - Atmel or PIC. I see advantages on both sides. It is necessary to count in the fact that PIC stuff have been around for a longer time than Atmel.
Microchip has from my point of view a big advantage - compatibility when upgrading to higher family. It's easy to upgrade from 16F to 18F family with a minimum change of code. This is the biggest issue for Atmel, on the other hand I like more flexible architecture of Atmel.
Anyway you can find a lot of similar discussions on EDABOARD so read and make your own decision.

P.S.: There is no reason to use 16F series these day when we have 18F for almost the same price. I know 16F876 & 16F877 are very popular MCUs but the 18F series is much more flexible with higher computing power, decent price, cheap development tools. I belive AVR guys would argue using similar phrases Smiley

P.P.S.: Speaking of 32bit architecture I'm more radical - ARM7 is unbeatable these days. The combination of ARM MCU core, GNU C development tools and Embedded Linux rules. And I'm not gonna argue about it anymore Wink

BTW, who said PIC don't have internal oscillator...? PIC18F series have it. Some of lower range family have it as well, see PIC12F629, 635, 675, 683; PIC16F627 - 690, 16F914 - 946, etc. Also 16-bit series have it.

Final note: Generally, please, stop talking about 16F family, it's a history. Move to 18Fxxxx or to 16-bit series.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2006, 12:02:52 00:02 by Zaphod Beeblebrox » Logged

Black holes are where the God divided by zero...
Don't panic!
proton
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117

Thank You
-Given: 24
-Receive: 148


« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2006, 09:21:32 21:21 »

PIC The worst ever architecture i have ever seen.YES because,

1.Restricted hardware stack
2.Common interrupt ISR
3.Need to select the page everytime we need to access any SFR
4.Runs at 4 times slower than the xtal
5.Poor table manipulation(Waste of memory)

It is only by advertisement that the PIC has become so popular
but the REAL DESIGNER knows it well if they have used both the chips that
AVR is the best to choose.I have used both PIC & AVR but i like AVR always.

 :mad:

Proton
Logged
mick
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196

Thank You
-Given: 929
-Receive: 84


« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2006, 02:03:45 02:03 »

Cute friend

I like your comment Smiley
Logged
max
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223

Thank You
-Given: 602
-Receive: 32


« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2006, 11:04:13 23:04 »

PIC is the out dated 8-bit uC of previous century while AVR is the latest 8-bit uC of previous century.
Logged

Fate arrived and made the conscious unconscious It silenced the activity of life.
munaf
Newbie
*
 Muted
Offline Offline

Posts: 29

Thank You
-Given: 0
-Receive: 2


« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2006, 04:24:40 16:24 »

Dear friends
 
Can we programed AVR in basic?  Where we found it, and any tutorial for learning avr programming.  Helpme.
Thanks
Munaf
« Last Edit: July 27, 2006, 05:06:29 17:06 by munaf » Logged
freddyg
Junior Member
**
 Muted
Offline Offline

Posts: 85

Thank You
-Given: 3
-Receive: 2


« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2006, 11:54:55 23:54 »

munaf,

BASCOM is probably the best BASIC compiler for the AVR (make sure you set the frame size correctly, or it won't run!!). Alternatively, several C compilers exist, with my favourite being totally free (GCC-AVR).

Don't bother with Mikrobasic for AVR if you are using ATMEGA48, ATMEGA88, ATMEGA8 (and possibly more!) because it won't even produce valid code!
(It will try to use JMP instead of RJMP) JMP isn't valid on these processors!

Freddy.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2006, 11:57:06 23:57 by freddyg » Logged
mick
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196

Thank You
-Given: 929
-Receive: 84


« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2006, 01:22:41 01:22 »

You can find AVR Bascom with edonkey
Logged
art666
Guest
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2006, 03:18:53 15:18 »

selecting one or other is down to what you need to do.
I find pic projects are faster to do. & after all the pic is only a micro-controller not a maths processor.
Logged
sam_des
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 221

Thank You
-Given: 47
-Receive: 111


« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2006, 05:03:43 17:03 »

Hi, Munaf

There is another basic compiler for AVR - FastAVR. Pretty similar to BASCOM. I feel that BASCOM's inability to produce 'listing' is a problem. With FastAVR you can even add your code in ASM file generated by compiler. Though FastAVR too, have certain limitaions.

I think best choice is WinAVR(AVR-GCC). AVRStudio 4 supports source level debugging. & its free !!!

More info just subscribe to 'AVRFreaks', you will get wealth of info, tutorials, projects etc.

sam_des
Logged

Never be afraid to do something new. Remember Amateurs built the Ark, Professionals built the Titanic !
kctan
Guest
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2006, 03:09:51 03:09 »

is good to us know more deeply about the PIC

cool friend
Logged
sohel
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 437

Thank You
-Given: 140
-Receive: 124



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2006, 08:55:50 20:55 »

but most of project ware make by motorola.  Roll Eyes

but i love pic and atmel

thanks
Logged

A Thousand Miles Journey Start With a Single Step<br />http://www.youtube.com/user/masud58
johnbharath
Guest
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2006, 08:00:03 08:00 »

I prefer pic fro its feautures and the availability of programers and compilers
Logged
tavioman
Active Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

Thank You
-Given: 14
-Receive: 17



« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2006, 12:53:53 12:53 »

For AVR there are a lot more development tools than PIC.
There is also a free C compiler. GNU-GCC(WinAVR).
Cheaper hardware development tools...
Logged

- Brain juice -
Pages: [1] 2  All
Print
Jump to:  


DISCLAIMER
WE DONT HOST ANY ILLEGAL FILES ON THE SERVER
USE CONTACT US TO REPORT ILLEGAL FILES
ADMINISTRATORS CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR USERS POSTS AND LINKS

... Copyright 2003-2999 Sonsivri.to ...
Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC | HarzeM Dilber MC