Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!netfs!dres.dnd.ca!dres.dnd.ca!amccor
From: amccor@dres.dnd.ca (Alan McCormac)
Subject: Re: 68HC11 vs. 8051FA
Message-ID: <amccor.19.2CA332C6@dres.dnd.ca>
Lines: 26
Sender: news@dres.dnd.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: alanm
Organization: Defence Research Establishment Suffield
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev Final Beta #10]
References: <1993Sep22.215107.18305@leland.Stanford.EDU> <lye.748737309@sfu.ca> <BROWEN.93Sep23135203@lyapunov.aoc.nrao.edu> <27tgjkINNdhl@uwm.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 17:47:51 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <27tgjkINNdhl@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>The proper comparison, as you imply, is between the 8051 and 68HC11, not 
>between the 80C186 and 68HC11, which have almost totally incongruous 
>architectures.

Comparing microprocessors and microcontrollers is really quite an apples to 
oranges thing.  The former concentrate on processing power and require a lot 
of external aid for I/O in embedded systems.  The latter have smaller address 
space and concentrate on low level special functions.

>Roughly speaking, the 68HC11 is equivalent to the 8051FA, though it's missing
>a few of the '51FA features, and has a few some features not in the 'FA (but
>in the '51GA).

How does the Intel 8096 series fit in this discussion?  Would that not be a 
close comparison to the 6811, with PWM, HSI/HSO, muxed A2D, etc.?
I understand it is a newer generation than the 8051, but I'm not that familiar 
with the 8051.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan McCormac                                        |  amccor@dres.dnd.ca
Vehicle Concepts Group - DRES                        |  Tel: (403)544-4832
Box 4000, Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada    T1A 8K6   |  FAX: (403)544-3761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   " The cost of research is a full garbage can "    -     A wise guy
