AVR vs. PIC

[Louis McIntyre]

PIC vs. AVR

Thanks for your Reply Steve

DIP package: yes… both PIC and AVR
Address Memory: the AVR can address up to 4 Meg
Instruction set: AVR runs at one cycle… PIC two or more
Memory: AVR has liner memory.
C - compiler friendly: (Steve you answer)
Assembler: Atmel is a clear winner

Presently we use Atmel in most of our products.
Example: is an industrial accurate and reliable temperature logger that records data from: -50 to 145 deg.c.

Lets hear from all you flowcode users

[dporragas]

When i started using AVR's i quickly saw the difference between PIC and AVR and let me tell you, i have no points in favor for PIC's except the vast information and of course Flowcode, even when my Microcontrollers class ask to build my projects with AVR, i kept doing them with PIC's and Flowcode for my other assignments... BUT....
since the arrival of Flowcode for AVR i have no reason for using PIC anymore since ATMEL AVR's are cheaper and have lot more resource's not to mention the Code Compresion Ratio for C and C++ for AVR is a lot greater than for PIC's. (AVR's were specially designed for C programming).
Γ‹xcuse my english, im from Mexico.

[iain wilkie]

AVR for me too .....

maybe they are different now but their architecture was very strange in the beginning. This I think was due to the fact that pics where
originally programmable devices for specific things like toys and garage door openers... it then became apparent that they may be useful
to bring programmability to other projects, however the architecture was stuck and everything evolved round it. On the other hand
AVR's were designed to be truely flexible with the architecture being specifically designed to create a well laid out CPU section.

However this is where Flowcode might help PIC haters like me in that we can conveniently ignore the architecture that makes us
heave !.

Iain

[Benj]

Hello,

In my opinion PICs are great for small projects where you need tight little loops with accurate timing or things like full speed USB.

Otherwise AVRs run about 4 x faster then a PIC at the same clock speed without even starting to look into the extra C optimisation and lack of problems like bank switching etc.

In a final twist I am now looking at 16-bit PICs and they are again even better They have thrown away the old PIC16 and PIC18 architecture and have access to some very powerful features such as USB OTG and DSP.

[iain wilkie]

I think deveoping Flowcode for the AVR was a good move from Matrix. PICs do not have the same professional appeal
as the AVR. I am a professional developer and have always used assembler simply because I cut my teeth on it and I can
write it in my sleep. C has always a bit of a difficulty for me .. so Flowcode bridges this gap very nicely. Flowcode most definately
has a future in the "professional" world and I hope Matrix realise this and develop accordingly. They may even wish to consider 8051 ...
yes still going strong after all these years, but that is testiment to its architecture. I did read a year or so ago in Circuit Cellar magazine that
there are still more 8051 micros and their derivitives used in the world today than any other processor.

I have to say the the 8051 (especially the super-charged verions from Silicon Labs) are fantastic professional quality devices with huge
hardware support. To hav Flowcode devolped for it would open up enormous opportunities for Matrix.

Iain