SILABS TIMING SOLUTIONS CODE

I'll make a counter statement: 'AVR programs are mostly faster because of the 32 GP registers.'ДЇor speed, a moderately-clocked AVR runs rings around a classic '51 in the cross-platform benchmarks that I have seen. As Kartman said, one can't necessarily dismiss either choice.Д«ut I certainly cannot agree that your conclusion in the second part of your statement can be drawn from the first part. And some of the new '51 variants have real cool peripheral subsets, and the single-clockers and few-clockers are real fast. Now I have the greatest respect for your work, danni. ) can be done in direkt SRAM on the 8051, but on the AVR not. Please just provide your opinion for me and I will really appreciate it~ Price: Mega88=0.85/pc with FW loading(free support), Silabs 1.3/pc => Mega88

Built-in Temperature sensor: mega88 non, Silabs has => Silabs, Atmel Mega88 will has built-in solution in Q2/07вЂ™.Д¦. DAC: Mega88 None, Silabs 12 bit => Silabs, Atmel said Mega88 could use PWM + brief circuit = DAC outputДҐ. ADC: Mega88 10bit, Sillabs 12bit, => Silabs, but Atmel Mega88 could perform real 10bit resolution and Silabs unknown.Д¤. EEPROM size: Mega88 512bytes, Silabs (0, and need external EEPROM) => Mega88, is there any layout space issue?ДЈ.

SILABS TIMING SOLUTIONS CODE

(need to check with Atmel AVR & Silabs CIP-51 assembly code performance, traditional 8051 assembly code is around 1/2~1/3 speed of AVR )Дў.

Speed: Atmel Mega88 8MHz, Silabs(24.5MHz) => Silabs is faster? Here bellow I list the requirement for our project.ДЎ. My colleague just told me Silabs C8051F413 is 24.5MHz much higher than Mega88 8MHz. I have a dilemma to choose one of it into my project.

Silabs timing solutions