Thanks Matt for the info. Sorry to other list members
that i'm suggesting "heresy" but i'm getting annoyed at
Microchip for seemingly ignoring Moore's law. Seems the
lowest cost PIC a few years back was a 12c508 and little
has changed! I love the idea of the new PIC 18 series
but we're not seeing many of them under $1. In cases
where you don't need fancy USARTs, ADCs etc but need a
lot of processing power for min $$ Microchip don't seem
to care.

> I just completed a design conversion for a client from a PIC16C926 to
> MSP430F437. My experience was very positive -- about the same BOM cost,
> now have 32K Flash, 1K RAM, MUCH better development tools and hardware
> debugging from the JTAG interface and best of all more than doubled the
> battery life of the unit. Would have done better than that, except we
> have one sensor whose baseline current can't be reduced.

Excellent. :o)

> I haven't done any "paying" projects with the smaller devices, but I do
> have a starter kit for the MSP430F1232 part. You might want to purchase
> one of these from TI, they are less than $100 and include a proto board
> with ZIF socket and access to all I/O pins, unlimited assembler, 4K
> code limited C compiler, JTAG programming/debug pod and cable. A really
> good way to give one a "test drive".

Sounds nice. I'm more interested in the $0.49 claim
and really don't need the peripherals, but will
check out the F1232. Nice to get a 4k C compiler too.

> As a general observation, I've found the code space used to be about
> equivalent between the two families. The MSP430 CPU is highly
> orthogonal so many things that take a couple instructions with the PIC
> can be accomplished in one instruction for the MSP430. The MSP430 has a
> real stack, pointers (all 16 bit), a linear address space, program
> memory accessible to the CPU, low interrupt latency and of course a 16-
> bit CPU.

Yep, very nice! :o)

> The peripheral modules are roughly equivalent, but I've found
> that TI's more advanced peripheral modules are much nicer than the PICs
> (much more versatile in low power modes -- you can do a LOT of things
> with the MSP430 and no CPU intervention and while in low power mode).

Yep, I noticed some nice options with the clocks
and timers, 430 definitely seems more adjustable with
the peripherals.

> To get the absolute lowest power consumption, you have to adopt a bit
> of a different mindset from the PICs. But I will vouch for the fact you
> can get extremely low power consumption from the MSP430.

Low power is great, but at this point i'm still more
interested in max processing power for the $$.

> I haven't measured direct performance vs. PIC, but my current project
> runs the CPU at 1.048576 MHz and the performance is noticeably better
> than the 4 MHz PIC in several areas (math mostly, owing to the 16 bit
> CPU) and about equivalent on the rest.

Excellent feedback, thank you Matt. So since the 430
will do 5MHz on *internal* clock, (zero xtal costs)
that's more than 6x faster than a PIC on internal clock.
And from a cheaper micro...

> I could probably run a few quick test programs on the MSP430F1232 board
> and send you the results if you are interested. Contact me off-list, if
> so.

Thanks a LOT for the offer, but it's probably better
for me to get a 430 kit myself and run my intended app
on it, saves you hassle and gives me more accurate
results for my exact app. But I do appreciate that
very nice offer! :o)

> I really like these parts. This was the first project in a long time
> that I had no development tool or chip-related hassles.

That's good, i'm a bit annoyed that the 430F1101 datasheet
is quite rough and sketchy compared to the PIC ones. The
TI web page is a bit of a let down too, based on a quick
browse.

> I've been doing
> professional development work for almost 25 years now and this is the
> first family of chips I can remember being excited about in many years.
> They won't make me give up using PICs when appropriate, but when all
> other things are equal, I'd pick the MSP430 parts -- even over the 18F
> family of parts.

Excellent info Matt, thank you. :o) When it comes to
bang for the buck the 430 might be a good one. It's
such a shame Microchip don't care about the low end
of the market. If they stuck a decent 16bit timer in the
16c505 (ala 12F675) and bumped it to 5mips on internal
clock, then dropped the price to $0.50 i'd be satisfied
even though it is still less powerful than a 430.
Sure the 12F675 is nice but again it's a case of adding
new peripherals and keeping the price up, rather than
introducing a lower-cost part with minimum features.
Surely I can't be the only designer wanting a fast
CHEAP micro?? Unless they do something soon i'm really
feeling like jumping ship. More and more i'm thinking
that PICs are for hobby use and not for "real"
production. :o(
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu