> >I'm inclined to agree here.  I think the 8bit cores have gotten
> >faster and the 32bit cores have gotten cheaper, to the point
> >where 16bit cores are being squeezed out of existence (if there
> >ever were any true 16 bit cores. x86?  PDP11?)
> 
> The ARM7 is a 16 bit core in Thumb mode.

I think in the text you are referring to you should read '8bit' instead
of '8bit core'. I don't think any real '8bit cores' exist any more.

> One point I didn't see touched upon is that of code density. The
> cost of a 32-bit core and an 8-bit may be essentially equal with,
> say, 0.18u technology (since it's such a tiny percentage of the total
> die real estate), but if the required flash for a given application is
> 50% more then the chip will be noticeably more expensive to make.

True, but if you are comparing core (instruction) widths the 16F PICs
are 14-bit cores, so the difference with a 16-bit core thumb-mode-ARM is
vanishingly small.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

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