Porting to a different class of Pic processors.

Thread Starter

MaxHeadRoom

Joined Jul 18, 2013
28,780
I have an application in assembly that was written in for a PIC 16C84, on the surface it appears to be a rather a simple application.
I would like to use a 16F or even a 12F (also assembly).
I am going through both manuals of course, but I wondered if there is any if's, and's or but's i should look out for, or be aware of! :(
So far I have never used any of the 16C pics.
 

JohnInTX

Joined Jun 26, 2012
4,787
12F1840 is a little jewel in an 8 pin DIP. Enhanced midrange with lots of stuff. Reasonably compatible architecture to the 16C84. Good if you’re staying with assembler.

16F84 Is a direct cross to the ‘C84 and there are a couple of better ones that are still pin compatible with it. I can look them up if you are interested. EDIT: see16F1826. Same family as 12F1840 with more pins. I’ve used both and would recommend either over the ‘F84.

Take a look and see what blows your dress up.

What debugger / programmer do anticipate using?
 
Last edited:

John P

Joined Oct 14, 2008
2,026
Anyone who likes the PIC12F1840 should love the PIC16F15214. As far as I can tell, it does all the same things and more, and costs less, which is typical Microchip marketing. And oh yes, Octopart says the PIC12F1840 is out of stock everywhere, but you can actually get the PIC16F15214. That ought to count for something!

The major drawback to PIC processors today (apart from being imported from Unobtania) is that they have so many features that at first sight, you'll be overwhelmed.
 

LesJones

Joined Jan 8, 2017
4,219
Hi Max, If you post the code (Or a link) for the pic16c84 source code I could try to get it working on a PIC12F1840 that I have in stock. The pic12F1840 also has the advantage that it has a built in oscillator so it saves the space required for an external crystal.

Les.
 

sagor

Joined Mar 10, 2019
919
I have an application in assembly that was written in for a PIC 16C84, on the surface it appears to be a rather a simple application.
I would like to use a 16F or even a 12F (also assembly).
I am going through both manuals of course, but I wondered if there is any if's, and's or but's i should look out for, or be aware of! :(
So far I have never used any of the 16C pics.
Wikipedia has several pin compatible variants listed. If going to a smaller footprint, you have to check for things like different ports (or lack thereof) and configuration bits.
 

Picbuster

Joined Dec 2, 2013
1,047
I have an application in assembly that was written in for a PIC 16C84, on the surface it appears to be a rather a simple application.
I would like to use a 16F or even a 12F (also assembly).
I am going through both manuals of course, but I wondered if there is any if's, and's or but's i should look out for, or be aware of! :(
So far I have never used any of the 16C pics.
Hi Max,

The 16f84 seems to be compatible with the pic 16f690
the pic 16f690 seems to compatible with pic 18f14k22
The assembler of the last 2 is more enhanced.
However when you use mplab(x) load the program and compile.
Takes a few minutes to find out.
I did migrate over the year from 16f84 to 18f14k22 I work in C#.

Picbuster
 

Thread Starter

MaxHeadRoom

Joined Jul 18, 2013
28,780
I am considering one of the 12F series as the application only uses 3 output pins.
Just in the process of reverse-engineering the original PGM!
 

John P

Joined Oct 14, 2008
2,026
I used the PIC16F690 for a few years, and I thought it was pretty good. But then the Enhanced Midrange processors came along, and I switched to the PIC16F18345. It's got a long list of added features and typically for Microchip, costs less. I just took a look at the PIC18F14K22, and I suppose for fast processing it's better--oscillator up to 64MHz, a multiply instruction, and various efficient software possibilities--but actually the PIC16F18345 has more in terms of peripherals and hardware features. Plus I was surprised to see that the PIC18 part only has 512 bytes of RAM, whereas the PIC16 has 1024. (And it's cheaper.)

Max, I really think a more versatile component would provide you with more fun in the long run!
 

Thread Starter

MaxHeadRoom

Joined Jul 18, 2013
28,780
The application appears very menial, also I have the IC's at hand, For larger applications, I have been using the 18F series for while now.
 

John P

Joined Oct 14, 2008
2,026
I think a lot of people switched to PIC18 parts a while ago and aren't aware of how capable some of the PIC16 chips are now. But it makes sense to have one set of components that we understand and can use without wasting a lot of time.
 
Top