Searching \ for '[EE] No more Intel 8051, 80251, 80196, 80386, 8048' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=more+intel+8051
Search entire site for: 'No more Intel 8051, 80251, 80196, 80386, 8048'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] No more Intel 8051, 80251, 80196, 80386, 8048'
2006\05\30@095812 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Interesting news.

http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QTQ1R241KS3IUQSNDBECKICCJUMEKJVN?articleID=188500905

>From Intel:
http://developer.intel.com/design/pcn/Processors/D0106013.pdf

Product Change Notification
Change Notification #: 106013 - 01
Change Title: MCS(r) 51, MCS(r) 251 and MCS(r) 96
Microcontroller Product Lines, the Intel(r)
186, Intel386™ and Intel486™ Processors
Product Lines, and the i960(r) 32 Bit RISC
Processor, PCN 106013-01, Product
Discontinuance, Reason for Revision: Add
Key Milestone information and revise
description of change
Date of Publication: May 02, 2006
Key Characteristics of the Change:
Product Discontinuance
Forecasted Key Milestones:
Product Discontinuance Program Support Begins: Mar 30, 2006
Product Discontinuance Demand To Local Intel Representative: Dec 01, 2006
Last Product Discontinuance Order Date: Mar 30, 2007
Last Product Discontinuance Shipment Date: Sep 28, 2007

Reason for Revision: Add Key Milestone information and revise
description of change
Intel Corporation has been manufacturing its MCS(r) 51, MCS(r) 251 and MCS(r)
96 Microcontroller Product Lines for over 25 years now, and the Intel(r)
186 Processor Families, the Intel386™ Processor Families and the
Intel486™ Processor Families for over 15 years now. Additionally, we
have been manufacturing the i960(r) 32 Bit RISC Processor Families for
over 15 years. However, at this time, the forecasted volumes for these
product lines are now too low to continue production of these products
beyond the year 2007. Therefore, Intel will cease manufacturing
silicon wafers for our 6" based processes in 2007. Affected products
include Intel's MCS(r)51, MCS(r)251, MCS(r)96, 80X18X, 80X38X, 80X486DXX, the
i960(r) Family of Microcomputers, in addition to the 82371SB, 82439TX and
the 82439HX Chipsets. Intel has no choice but to issue a Product
Discontinuance Notice (PDN) effective 3/30/06. Last time orders will
be accepted till 3/30/07 with last time ship dates of 9/28/07.

2006\05\30@103956 by kravnus wolf

picon face
Thanks for the update Xiaofan

John

--- Xiaofan Chen <spam_OUTxiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting news.
>
>
www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QTQ1R241KS3IUQSNDBECKICCJUMEKJVN?articleID=188500905
>
> >From Intel:
>
developer.intel.com/design/pcn/Processors/D0106013.pdf
{Quote hidden}

now.
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\05\30@220348 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Interesting news.

> http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QTQ1R241KS3IUQSNDBECKICCJUMEKJVN?articleID=188500905

> http://developer.intel.com/design/pcn/Processors/D0106013.pdf

> Product Change Notification
> Change Notification #: 106013 - 01
> Change Title: MCS(r) 51, MCS(r) 251 and MCS(r) 96
> Microcontroller Product Lines, ...

Have Intel-made processors held a relevant part of the 8051 market lately?
It's been a while that I used one, but even then, Intel wasn't really an
attractive manufacturer of 8051 processors. Is this expected to have any
significant impact on the 8051 market?

Gerhard

2006\05\30@221940 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 5/31/06, Gerhard Fiedler <.....listsKILLspamspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> Have Intel-made processors held a relevant part of the 8051 market lately?
> It's been a while that I used one, but even then, Intel wasn't really an
> attractive manufacturer of 8051 processors. Is this expected to have any
> significant impact on the 8051 market?
>

No. Just the end of an era...
Once upon a time, I studied MCS51 (8031) along with Z80. Another
popular MCU at that time was Intel 8098. I did not know anything
about PIC at that time.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\05\31@001224 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>
> Have Intel-made processors held a relevant part of the 8051 market
> lately?

The loss of Intel 8051s is not so interesting, but this is the
death of the 251, 196, and 960 as ARCHITECTURES, isn't it?  I
don't think those were ever licensed to second sources (lots of
places did their own speed-enhanced 8051 cores, but not actual
80251s...)  (In a way, this shows how far behind Intel had fallen
in the microcontroller marketplace?  Have they really not had a
leading microcontroller since the original 8051?  Wow.)

BillW

2006\05\31@005142 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 5/31/06, William Chops Westfield <westfwspamKILLspammac.com> wrote:
> >
> > Have Intel-made processors held a relevant part of the 8051 market
> > lately?
>
> The loss of Intel 8051s is not so interesting, but this is the
> death of the 251, 196, and 960 as ARCHITECTURES, isn't it?  I
> don't think those were ever licensed to second sources (lots of
> places did their own speed-enhanced 8051 cores, but not actual
> 80251s...)  (In a way, this shows how far behind Intel had fallen
> in the microcontroller marketplace?  Have they really not had a
> leading microcontroller since the original 8051?  Wow.)
>


http://www.keil.com/c251/chips.asp
There are some clones for the MCS251. But I think they are not
really popular. It is the same for Philips' XA.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\05\31@095418 by RJW

flavicon
face
It means nothing. We've been using the MCS51 family since ever and the last
time i saw (or specified for a new design) an Intel member of such family
was in 1993, if i recall correctly. There's actually more than 50
manufacturers producing a 51 for every need http://www.keil.com/dd/. The 251
is second sourced too. The same applies to the 386 and others, excepting
maybe for the 960 (which was popular only in some niches as cars computers
and VFDs).


{Original Message removed}

2006\05\31@102615 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> It means nothing. We've been using the MCS51 family since ever and
> the last
> time i saw (or specified for a new design) an Intel member of such
> family
> was in 1993, if i recall correctly. There's actually more than 50
> manufacturers producing a 51 for every need http://www.keil.com/dd/.
> The 251
> is second sourced too. The same applies to the 386 and others,
> excepting
> maybe for the 960 (which was popular only in some niches as cars
> computers
> and VFDs).


A friend notes:

Agilent will be busy as a lot of their current lower-end standard
instruments are based around the 8096/80196.  A lot of people are
going to
miss that processor which as far as I know doesn't have any second
source.
Expect someone to step up to the plate with a replacement.


       RM


2006\05\31@104057 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 5/31/06, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> A friend notes:
>
> Agilent will be busy as a lot of their current lower-end standard
> instruments are based around the 8096/80196.  A lot of people are
> going to miss that processor which as far as I know doesn't have any
>second source.
> Expect someone to step up to the plate with a replacement.
>
>         RM

Chip obsolete is really a big problem for many manufacturers.
Half of the projects on-going in my previous department
is actually redesign because of an ASIC obsolete some time ago.
The redesign is often costly.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\05\31@105431 by Charles Craft

picon face
HP X terminals used the i960 in the early 90's.
Was strange at first to pop the lid on an HP product and not see a PA-RISC.  %-)

{Original Message removed}

2006\05\31@110142 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
It also means a lot of old semiconductor equipment will go on the used
market over the next few years.

Anyone want to start a 6" fab?

-Adam

On 5/30/06, Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2006\05\31@131631 by Martin Klingensmith

flavicon
face
Couny me in. Do you have the capital? ;-)
--
MK

M. Adam Davis wrote:

>It also means a lot of old semiconductor equipment will go on the used
>market over the next few years.
>
>Anyone want to start a 6" fab?
>
>-Adam
>
>  
>

2006\05\31@150032 by Peter

picon face


On Tue, 30 May 2006, William Chops Westfield wrote:

>> Have Intel-made processors held a relevant part of the 8051 market lately?
>
> The loss of Intel 8051s is not so interesting, but this is the
> death of the 251, 196, and 960 as ARCHITECTURES, isn't it?  I
> don't think those were ever licensed to second sources (lots of
> places did their own speed-enhanced 8051 cores, but not actual
> 80251s...)  (In a way, this shows how far behind Intel had fallen
> in the microcontroller marketplace?  Have they really not had a
> leading microcontroller since the original 8051?  Wow.)

Intel do Xscale (==Arm). The time has come ...

Peter

2006\05\31@223653 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 5/31/06, M. Adam Davis <stienmanspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> It also means a lot of old semiconductor equipment will go on the used
> market over the next few years.
>
> Anyone want to start a 6" fab?
>
> -Adam

Intel sold some old equipment to China based NanoTech.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/21/HNintelsharewithchina_1.html

I guess it would still require quite some capital to start and maintain
a 6" fab.

Regards,
Xiaofan


'[EE] No more Intel 8051, 80251, 80196, 80386, 8048'
2006\06\01@113229 by Robert Ammerman
picon face
>> Agilent will be busy as a lot of their current lower-end standard
>> instruments are based around the 8096/80196.  A lot of people are
>> going to miss that processor which as far as I know doesn't have any
>>second source.
>> Expect someone to step up to the plate with a replacement.
>>
>>         RM
>

A replacement is probably not necessary. These chips never were very fast,
and a software emulator for them on a more modern chip (ARM?) would easily
handle the requirements of any application into which they were designed.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2006\06\01@193440 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/1/06, Robert Ammerman <@spam@rammermanKILLspamspamverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Agilent will be busy as a lot of their current lower-end standard
> >> instruments are based around the 8096/80196.  A lot of people are
> >> going to miss that processor which as far as I know doesn't have any
> >>second source.
> >> Expect someone to step up to the plate with a replacement.
> >>
> >>         RM
> >
>
> A replacement is probably not necessary. These chips never were very fast,
> and a software emulator for them on a more modern chip (ARM?) would easily
> handle the requirements of any application into which they were designed.
>
> Bob Ammerman
> RAm Systems
>

Interesting idea, but is it really easier? You can emulate the instructions
probably, but how do you emulate the peripherals? And ofthen it is not
easy to find a pin-compatible MCU to replace them so a redesign is
anyway necessary.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\06\02@034438 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Interesting idea, but is it really easier? You can emulate
>the instructions probably, but how do you emulate the
>peripherals? And ofthen it is not easy to find a pin-compatible
>MCU to replace them so a redesign is anyway necessary.

And if the equipment is that old that it uses one of these processors, then
it is probably due for a re-design anyway to catch up with the competing
products that have now overtaken it ...

2006\06\04@114900 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/1/06, Peter <KILLspamplpKILLspamspamactcom.co.il> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> >> Have Intel-made processors held a relevant part of the 8051 market lately?
> >
> Intel do Xscale (==Arm). The time has come ...
>

If the following report is true, then Intel is about to sell XScale as well...
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3QLELIIKBMRXUQSNDBECKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=188701421

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Troubled Intel Corp. has put several of its
loss-ridden communications-chip businesses on the block, including its
network processors,
XScale chip lines and other products, according to a report from the San Jose
Mercury News on Saturday (June 3).
...

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\06\04@124135 by Peter

picon face

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> If the following report is true, then Intel is about to sell XScale as
> well...

Selling != killing. It will likely continue to exist under another name.
I happen to know that there are some quite good products in the Xscale
line.

Peter

2006\06\04@130617 by kravnus wolf

picon face
OUCH! Intel must really be hurting. I wonder when they
will shutdown Malaysia plant and R&D centre and move
to China for good. At least AMD seems to be in better
financial shape.......

John



--- Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3QLELIIKBMRXUQSNDBECKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=188701421
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\06\04@184451 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:06 AM, kravnus wolf wrote:

> OUCH! Intel must really be hurting.

Intel can't be hurting THAT much.  Their P/E ratios are much
lower than most semiconductor manufacturers (roughly, that
means they have more room to cut prices while still making
a profit than AMD/etc.)

The whole network processor thing was a bit of a bust; there
weren't/aren't enough "big" buyers in the market to justify
the development effort (and it turned out that the "opportunity"
for such buyers was mostly hype.)  And it didn't help that the
buyers that DID exist held their "requirements" to be pretty
proprietary and would rather make their own...

BillW

2006\06\04@205359 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/5/06, kravnus wolf <TakeThisOuTkravnusEraseMEspamspam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> OUCH! Intel must really be hurting. I wonder when they
> will shutdown Malaysia plant and R&D centre and move
> to China for good. At least AMD seems to be in better
> financial shape.......

Actually they are beefing up the plant and R&D center
in Malaysia. Anyway, Shanghai (one of Intel's plants
and R&D cneter in China) is much much more expensive than
Malaysia. They have set up plants in Western China (Chengdu).

As for Intel versus AMD, I think Intel will still be a stronger
position in the long run...

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\06\04@213716 by kravnus wolf

picon face


--- Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

> Actually they are beefing up the plant and R&D
> center
> in Malaysia. Anyway, Shanghai (one of Intel's plants
> and R&D cneter in China) is much much more expensive
> than
> Malaysia. They have set up plants in Western China
> (Chengdu).
>
 Can you pls explain why is Shanghai more expensive
to run? As a Malaysian I see no reason why Intel wants
to stay in Malaysia since material is cheaper and more
skill ppl are plenty in China.


> As for Intel versus AMD, I think Intel will still be
> a stronger
> position in the long run...
>
 I do hope so or there will be a monopoly :(

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

2006\06\04@231611 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/5/06, kravnus wolf <kravnusEraseMEspam.....yahoo.com> wrote:

>   Can you pls explain why is Shanghai more expensive
> to run? As a Malaysian I see no reason why Intel wants
> to stay in Malaysia since material is cheaper and more
> skill ppl are plenty in China.
>

Shanghai is almost as expensive as Singapore depending on the
life style.
http://madaboutshanghai.blogs.com/mad_about_shanghai/2005/07/is_living_in_sh.html

Depending the ways of living, Shanghai can be less expensive than
Singapore but I would say it is more expensive than most places
in Malaysia. The average GDP in Shanghai is over US$5000. The
average housing price in Shanghai is about RMB10000-15000 per
square meter (that is US$1250 to US$1875 per square meter).
Of course for those who already owned a house, the living standard
is not bad. For new comers, too bad if you do not have a good job.

That is why the manufacturing plants for quite some companies
are actually in the nearby Jiangshu Province, which is relatively cheaper
than Shanghai.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\06\04@234058 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/5/06, William Chops Westfield <EraseMEwestfwspammac.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:06 AM, kravnus wolf wrote:
>
> > OUCH! Intel must really be hurting.
>
> Intel can't be hurting THAT much.  Their P/E ratios are much
> lower than most semiconductor manufacturers (roughly, that
> means they have more room to cut prices while still making
> a profit than AMD/etc.)

I think Intel is doing well. It is just not as good as the stock
market wants...

> The whole network processor thing was a bit of a bust; there
> weren't/aren't enough "big" buyers in the market to justify
> the development effort (and it turned out that the "opportunity"
> for such buyers was mostly hype.)  And it didn't help that the
> buyers that DID exist held their "requirements" to be pretty
> proprietary and would rather make their own...
>
> BillW

Does that mean CISCO and other gear makers make their own
ASICs to power up those communication gears?

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\06\04@235457 by Charles Craft

picon face
I usually just use email to CYA but Cisco implements it in a ASIC:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/63/vip_crash.html#identifyvip

"%VIP2-1-MSG: slot1 Parity Error internal to CYA "

It's also important to understand that data with bad parity can be reported by several of the parity checking devices on the VIP and Cisco 7500 Series Router for any single read or write operation. For example, if the VIP is reading a packet on a transmit queue on the RSP into its own SRAM, and there is a parity error in the RSP's SRAM, then you see error messages from the MD ASIC on the RSP, *** the CYA ASIC on the VIP, *** and also the PCI/packet memory ASIC on the VIP.


<snip>

{Quote hidden}

>-

2006\06\05@000046 by Charles Craft

picon face
www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA424895.html
(text below)
>
>> The whole network processor thing was a bit of a bust; there
>> weren't/aren't enough "big" buyers in the market to justify
>> the development effort (and it turned out that the "opportunity"
>> for such buyers was mostly hype.)  And it didn't help that the
>> buyers that DID exist held their "requirements" to be pretty
>> proprietary and would rather make their own...
>>
>> BillW
>
>Does that mean CISCO and other gear makers make their own
>ASICs to power up those communication gears?
>
>Regards,
>Xiaofan
>

2006\06\05@012141 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:40 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Does that mean CISCO and other gear makers make their own
> ASICs to power up those communication gears?
>
Yes.  Not exclusively, of course; most vendors have a range of
products that include everything from standard processors running
linux in near-"reference design" sort of configuration (ie LinkSys)
to boxes that are massive collections of state-of-the-art ASICs
even in places where you'd think they wouldn't need ASICs.  Some
products even contain vendor-supplied "network processors" in
various roles, so it's not like they're "useless."  But the vendor
dream of cisco (or other vendor) standardizing on their NPU and
using it in ALL their products to push up the volume to where that
single design win will pay for the product development is not very
realistic.  (If nothing else, there asre internal NIH problems,
and one BU picking a particular NPU is probably detrimental to the
next one to "evaluate" the landscape.  (sigh.))

It's like... If you want to hire and retain top hardware engineers,
you have to let them design ASICs.  :-)  Putting together standard
parts in standard ways is for ... contractors.

BillW

2006\06\07@131742 by Robert Ammerman

picon face
{Quote hidden}

At least a partial hardware redesign would be needed, but this could be used
as an opportunity to refresh the technology probably reducing the cost of
the BOM by quite a bit. Reworking the software only costs one-time $$$,
there is no savings in unit cost vs. using the old software.

As far as the peripherals are concerned you typically directly use those of
the new microprocessor and provide an escape to the native environment. Then
you modify the code that accesses the peripherals (probably a small portion
of the total code) to use the new ones.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


2006\06\08@044943 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Robert Ammerman wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Aren't a lot of these chips adequately emulated in FPGA's?

I've seen "cores" for various 6800/68000-series chips available at
various costs, and know some folks that didn't want to throw out some
old 6809 code that just stuffed the "core" into an FPGA and treat it
just like it's a 6809...

Won't a small niche market for such things pop up for these older Intel
chips as well, if someone still really needs them?

Nate

2006\06\30@092834 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/5/06, Peter <RemoveMEplpEraseMEspamEraseMEactcom.co.il> wrote:

> > If the following report is true, then Intel is about to sell XScale as
> > well...
>
> Selling != killing. It will likely continue to exist under another name.
> I happen to know that there are some quite good products in the Xscale
> line.
>

Now the news is confirmed. Marvell will get the Xscale business. And
yes I think Xscale will be staying around.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060627corp.htm

Regards,
Xiaofan

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...