Recently I bought some LPC1114 microcontrollers from NXP. They come in DIP packages and feature an ARM Core M0. Although comparing the clock speeds of different architectures is not the best indicator of speed, I would still expect this chip running at 50MHz to be faster than the MSP430s running at 16MHz that I have been using until now. Later I found out that the flash of the LPC1114 only runs at 20MHz, which will bottleneck any programs running from there. Running from RAM would be much faster but the chip only has 4KB of SRAM. On the other hand, it does have a three-stage pipeline. Value-line MSP430s only have instruction-prefetch. All of this makes it a bit difficult to know how much faster one chip would be than another, so I have decided to run a few benchmarks.
Another architecture I have been interested in lately is the 8051. This is much older than the other two architectures I want to check but it remains popular with some people. Instructions take 12, 24, or 48 cycles to execute, which is less efficient compared to an MSP430 which needs only 3-6. Some modern 8051s feature a full-pipeline and clock speeds over 30MHz. These are interesting to me because I think they may be able to outperform the MSP430 in some ways. I was able to sample some AT89LP6440s from Atmel and a DS89C450 from Maxim Integrated which both come in DIP packages. The AT89LP6440 can fetch one byte per clock cycle from memory, meaning that it should in practice run slower than 1 MIPS per MHz but still much faster than other 8051s. It does have a hardware multiplier which surprised me to find out. The datasheet for the DS89C450 lists it as one clock-per-machine cycle, so it should run faster MHz per MHz than the AT89LP6440. It can also run at 33MHz compared to the AT89LP6440 at 20MHz.
The last microcontroller I will test is the Z16F from Zilog. This is a 16-bit CISC design descended from the 8-bit Z80. According to the Zilog website, it outperforms many RISC designs in the same class. It can do 32-bit ALU operations, has a hardware multiplier, and does some pipelining. I know the least about this chip but the design is interesting and I may use it in a future project if it performs well.
Here are some specifications of the microcontrollers that will be involved:
There are many factors that need to be taken into account when choosing a microcontroller. For this test I have decided to test only calculation speed and to ignore other factors such as the peripherals. Consequently, the results will not be relevant to some people. This also will not tell me which microcontroller is the best overall. These particular chips are dissimilar in many ways and this is not a comparison of microcontrollers from the same class. They are only being compared because I am curious about them.
One good reason to do this test is so that I have an excuse to set up the tool chains and programmers for all of these chips. This will take some time so I will release the results in a few parts. It will give me a break from the RPN Scientific Calculator I am making.
Another architecture I have been interested in lately is the 8051. This is much older than the other two architectures I want to check but it remains popular with some people. Instructions take 12, 24, or 48 cycles to execute, which is less efficient compared to an MSP430 which needs only 3-6. Some modern 8051s feature a full-pipeline and clock speeds over 30MHz. These are interesting to me because I think they may be able to outperform the MSP430 in some ways. I was able to sample some AT89LP6440s from Atmel and a DS89C450 from Maxim Integrated which both come in DIP packages. The AT89LP6440 can fetch one byte per clock cycle from memory, meaning that it should in practice run slower than 1 MIPS per MHz but still much faster than other 8051s. It does have a hardware multiplier which surprised me to find out. The datasheet for the DS89C450 lists it as one clock-per-machine cycle, so it should run faster MHz per MHz than the AT89LP6440. It can also run at 33MHz compared to the AT89LP6440 at 20MHz.
The last microcontroller I will test is the Z16F from Zilog. This is a 16-bit CISC design descended from the 8-bit Z80. According to the Zilog website, it outperforms many RISC designs in the same class. It can do 32-bit ALU operations, has a hardware multiplier, and does some pipelining. I know the least about this chip but the design is interesting and I may use it in a future project if it performs well.
Here are some specifications of the microcontrollers that will be involved:
| Microcontroller | Clock Speed | RAM | Flash | Core |
| MSP430G2553 | 16MHz | 0.5KB | 16KB | MSP430 |
| LPC1114FN28 | 50MHz | 4KB | 32KB | ARM Core M0 |
| AT89LP6440 | 20MHz | 4KB | 64KB | 8051 |
| DS89C450 | 33MHz | 1KB | 64KB | 8051 |
| Z16F2810 | 20MHz | 4KB | 128KB | ZNEO |
There are many factors that need to be taken into account when choosing a microcontroller. For this test I have decided to test only calculation speed and to ignore other factors such as the peripherals. Consequently, the results will not be relevant to some people. This also will not tell me which microcontroller is the best overall. These particular chips are dissimilar in many ways and this is not a comparison of microcontrollers from the same class. They are only being compared because I am curious about them.
One good reason to do this test is so that I have an excuse to set up the tool chains and programmers for all of these chips. This will take some time so I will release the results in a few parts. It will give me a break from the RPN Scientific Calculator I am making.
No comments:
Post a Comment