difference between 8051 and msp430

You cannot compare the two. The 8051 is a dinosaur, but still has its uses. Its two advantages are the externally available address/data bus (allowing attachment of external memory or memory-mapped hardware) and the bit-addressing of its I/O ports.

The MSP is faster, consumes much less power, has a 16 bit orthogonal instruction set (not an accumulator-based math), lots of highly-sophisticated hardware modules built-in, including ADC, hardware multiplier etc.
However, modifying a port pin is a read/modify/write operation of a whole port register, and it has no way to memory-map external hardware. It has its internal ram/flash wher ecode can run from and hardware modules are mapped to, and that's it.

Ivy said:

MSP430+CC2560 should be good enough for this project right? But the price is a bit too expensive for us. so is there any other microcontroller + bluetooth module can take place of it?

Nothing that's related to Bluetooth is simple. BT itself is far from being simple. Even if all you want to do is sending always the same single byte through BT, you still need the overhead of the complete BT stack and the procisseing power to handle the BT connection. Whether the project is simple or not, makes no difference.

The expensive part is the BT transceiver and teh BT stack license. The MSP itself does only cost ~$5 (single unit)

If you need it cheaper, forget about BT and go for a plain (license-free and less expensive) 433 or 868 transceiver like the CC2500 or so. You'll get three MSPs with transceiver, completely with PCB, for a few $. (look for EZ2500)

Of course the sender device must be compatible (same combo)

Jens-Michael Gross said:

The 8051 is a dinosaur

The Intel 8051 chips are long obsolete, but there are plenty of modern derivatives that use the 8051 Architecture.

A key difference between 8051 and MSP is that MSP is a proprietary architecture, exclusive to TI - whereas 8051 is available from literally hundreds of different manufacturers.

This means that there is - and probably always will be - vastly more support and experience for the 8051 than MSP (or any other proprietary architecture).

In a way, the 8051 is like the ARM of the 8-bit world.

Jens-Michael Gross said:

still has its uses

8051 derivatives continue to be widely used, and new chips are still being introduced.

The 8051 core is often used within "System-On-Chip" (SoC) devices.

Jens-Michael Gross said:

externally available address/data bus

Many (most?) modern derivatives don't have external address/data busses - but, instead, have plenty of on-chip RAM and Flash

Jens-Michael Gross said:

bit-addressing of its I/O ports

Not just IO ports - also some SFRs and some of the RAM.

Jens-Michael Gross said:

The MSP is faster

Again, that depends on whether you're just talking about the original Intel chips, or the modern derivatives - which reach vastly higher speeds!

 

Jens-Michael Gross said:

The MSP ...  consumes much less power, has a 16 bit orthogonal instruction set

Yes, they are key distinguishing features of the MSP.

Jens-Michael Gross said:

highly-sophisticated hardware modules built-in, including ADC,

Again, many modern 8051 derivatives also have highly-sophisticated hardware modules built-in, including ADC,etc

Jens-Michael Gross said:

Nothing that's related to Bluetooth is simple

Agreed! 

It has nothing to do with microcontroller choice - it's BT!

Jens-Michael Gross said:

The expensive part is the BT transceiver and teh BT stack license. The MSP itself does only cost ~$5 (single unit)

Agreed.

Jens-Michael Gross said:

If you need it cheaper, forget about BT

Agreed.

I wouldn't have thought that BT was particularly well-suited to lighting control?

Andy Neil said:

The Intel 8051 chips are long obsolete, but there are plenty of modern derivatives that use the 8051 Architecture.

Indeed. Well, the quesiton was about 8051, not any specific implementation. So I compared the 'roots'.

Andy Neil said:

I wouldn't have thought that BT was particularly well-suited to lighting control?

One advantage of BT over a simple infrared remote would be that the light you're controlling won't interfere with the control signal. (especially if you dim, the resulting interference is often by magintudes brighter than the IR LED, adn the receives cannot filter it properly anymore). Any RF control is better than IR. Only hypersonic remots are worse :)
However, using BT to control lights is like using USB and its many control layers to receive serial mouse information. Big, bloated, a waste of ressources, but commonly used these days. Just to receive three bytes with 1200Bd every now and then.

Hi Jens-Michael Gross and Andy Neil,

Thanks so much for the replies! it's very helpful!

BR

Ivy

Jens-Michael Gross said:

Well, the quesiton was about 8051

Indeed, but the question was ambiguous - it wasn't clear whether that was meant to refer specifically to the ancient Intel parts, or the still-thriving family of derivatives based on that architecture.

These days, "8051" (and/or "8052") is commonly used  as a generic term for anything based on that architecture...

eg, http://www.8052.com