[time-nuts] precision timing pulse

David davidwhess at gmail.com
Thu Nov 17 14:20:02 EST 2016

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:14:59 -0800, you wrote:

>albertson.chris at gmail.com said:
>> I'm wondering why everyone seems to be assuming a PIC is the right processor
>If you want cycle-accurate timing, one approach is to count cycles.  If you 
>have an assembly level background, the PIC is as good as any small chip.  
>Yes, it's a pain to get started if you don't have a working setup or a friend 
>with one you can copy.

Even when not counting cycles, there are other considerations.

1. PIC (and AVR and some others) are available in small DIP packages
making prototyping or one shot projects easy.

2. PIC is the least expensive followed by RS08 from NXP/Freescale, eZ8
from Zilog, and finally AVR from Atmel.

3. PIC and AVR have the most support.  I would probably prefer the AVR
ISA but PIC is 1/3rd the cost and seems to have better peripherals and
documentation.  Since Microchip bought Atmel, I worry that AVR will be
effectively discontinued.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list