4 ms·
> The distinction used to be "Whether the bus is exposed externally". Which bus is "the bus"? SoCs and microcontrollers alike expose a bunch of different buse
by foxfluff 5y ago
> The distinction used to be "Whether the bus is exposed externally".
Which bus is "the bus"? SoCs and microcontrollers alike expose a bunch of different buses.
- blueflow 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_bus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_bus I'm assuming Naumann arch, with instructions and data on a single bus.
- foxfluff 5y agoOk, right, that really has a legacy smell to it. If you can find the pinout for a modern Intel CPU, it has dedicated pins from DRAM controller to the DDR. It's not on some external "all-purpose" bus. Whatever bus you might have is internal to the CPU. Same thing on any modern ARM SoC with DDR support.
- blueflow 5y agoEven if you dont work with it anymore and call it legacy, its still a real thing, and its a bad idea to re-use the word to mean something else.
- foxfluff 5y agoThe question is then, should we start calling modern Intel CPUs microcontrollers? That's bound to cause even more confusion. If anything, the things people today refer to as microcontrollers have more to do with your legacy microprocessor than they have with a high end CPU or SoC. What's the right term to use?
- blueflow 5y agoAt least don't redefine "Microprocessor" in a way that it does not include the 8086, the one that made the it popular. Its nonsensical.