Honestly, they're all vastly different.  They're all RISC, but that's
about where the comparison stops.  Atmel has the best architecture, but
pic has been around long enough that tools/sw and the chips themselves
are cheap and easy to come by.



Richard Zinn wrote:

>I've been wondering the same thing.  Except, I'd also ask about the Zilog
>chips?  Like the eZ80?  How do the Atmel, Microchip, and Zilog chips
>compare?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Jordan [mailto:mark@CPOVO.NET]
>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 10:06 AM
>To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: [PIC/AVR] PIC vs AVR (ATMEL)
>
>
>        Hi Andre,
>
>        I did that move some years ago. Never regretted.
>        I can tell you my reasons, but they couldn't be very
>significant to you:
>
>        1. More speed, almost 1 MIPS/MHz.
>        2. No memory bank switching.
>        3. Not only one accumulator but lots of them to work with.
>        4. Very resourceful assembly language.
>        5. Multiply instructions (8x8) in TWO clock cycles!
>
>        Last week I had to do a rework on an old PIC design.
>        Boy, I missed the AVR that week!
>
>        Mark Jordan
>
>On 15 Apr 2004 at 18:38, Andre Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Has anyone ever considered moving from PIC to Atmel AVR's ? If so, what
>>are good reasons to move ?
>>
>>I am thinking that there's a few advantages in the development tools
>>available, but then I am making an uninformed statement... Anyone else
>>willing to shed an enlightended opinion?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Andre Thomas
>>
>>--
>>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>>mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
>>
>>
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
>
>

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