> > better. eg parameters D021 (WDT current), D015 etc (run uA
> > at various frequencies).
>
> I've never coupled "nanoWatt" to the fact that some Dxxx-parameters
> should be better on those devices then on other devices

But doesn't "nanoWatt" imply that the part should use less power ?
Maybe I over-simplified the case for the 12F675 vs the 12F683. I can't
see one power parameter for the 683 that's better than the 675 (possibly
I've missed something)

> But rather to the fact that they have such features as 1% intosc, an
> intosc "gearbox" with 8 steps, WDT with a larger range, two-speed
> startup and so on. And in those cases what I wrote about the 12F's
> is correct

The 683 is obviously more fully-featured (which you pay for, naturally)
than the 675 , but specifically apropos The Subject, the12F675 is a
perfectly good example of a nW part. Microchip have simply omitted it
from the list of parts they describe as nW. IMHO that list is neither
complete
nor correct (as noted previously, 12F675 excluded, 16F628A included)

> Now, since the 12F683 has twice the flash, much more RAM, more
> peripherials and so on, I'm not surpriced that one can find some
> parameters that are "worse" compared with the older 12F's with less
> flash, less RAM and less features in general

By that same argument then, you'd expect that the same core with fewer
features would use less power. Which it does, so is not the 12F675 nW ?

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist