The start of the much-anticipated death of 16-bit processors is upon us. Because of insufficient forecasted demand, March 30, 2007, is the final date that Intel will accept orders for its MCS51, MCS251, MCS96, 80X18X, 80X38X, 80X486DXX, and i960 microprocessors; Intel will ship the last of these devices by Sept 28, 2007 (Reference 1). It is only a matter of time before the other semiconductor companies producing 16-bit processors follow. Or is it? Are 16-bit processors destined to become a footnote in the history books?

The much-heralded death of the 8-bit processor has failed to materialize, and it seems that almost everyone has acknowledged that 8-bit processors will continue to enjoy a robust place in the market. The market for 8-bit processors has not stagnated, but, rather, it continues to find new life as the smallest package, lowest power consumption, or lowest cost devices find their way into applications that were just a few years ago not economically or technically feasible.

...

As much as high-end 8-bit processors are adding capabilities and features that compete with low-end 16-bit processors, it is the falling edge of low-end 32-bit processors reaching down into the 16-bit price range that some people have identified as the largest threat to the long-term viability of 16-bit architectures.

...

At first glance, 8- and 32-bit processor architectures are squeezing out 16-bit architectures. The last few years have seen a resurgence of development effort by 8-bit-processor vendors. A previous article about 8- and 32-bit products explored why 8-bit processors best cover the low end of embedded applications in price, power, and package size (Reference 5). That article focuses on why 8-bit processors can fend off increasingly lower cost 32-bit devices. This article expands on the processing sweet spots that last year's processing-options article proposed (Reference 6).


<< 1 2 3 4 >> ALL