Well, Allison, it appears you're right. The AMD 9080 was the one with the 250ns
clock (4 MHz) period, now that I've looked a couple of references. Thanks for
clearing that up.
However, that doesn't explain what's going on in my iSBC8020-4's. I'll have to
figure that one out.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "ajp166" <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
> no, it was 2mhz.
>
> using 8224 the usual crystal was 18.435 (2.0483333*9).
> there was a -1. -2 and -3 version of the part but the fastest was 3mhz.
>
> I used to sell upD8080AF for NEC and I had to know my competition.
>
> Allison
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
> To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:23 PM
> Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>
>
> >BTW, the 8080 was a 2.5 MHz part, wasn't it? I've got a couple Intel
> app-notes
> >where they generate a baud-rate clock from 24.576 MHz and generate the
> CPU clock
> >from that, at 2.4576 MHz for the CPU. That's on an i8080-2.
> >
> >Dick
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ajp166" <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
> >To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> >Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 2:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
> >
> >
> >> Wrong!
> >>
> >> The I8080A is AS fast as the i8080. the i8080A-1 is faster but not
> twice
> >> as the fastest 8080[A] was only 3mhz and hte standard part was 2mhz.
> >>
> >> Allison
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John Galt <gmphillips_at_earthlink.net>
> >> To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> >> Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:57 PM
> >> Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
> >>
> >>
> >> >"The i8080A is essentially twice as fast as the
> >> > standard i8080 and COULD be used more easily with low-power logic
> since
> >> its
> >> >demands aren't as stringent".
> >> >
> >> >Ok, that's a good start.
> >> >
> >> >But, I don't think "low power" TTL (transistor transistor logic) had
> >> >anything to do with the complexity of the code being executed on the
> >> chip.
> >> >True? I had assumed
> >> >that the references to the 8080 only being compatible
> >> >with "low-power TTL" and the 8080A being compatible
> >> >with "standard TTL" had something to do with the support chips (Ram,
> >> clock,
> >> >etc) that could be used with the 8080 vs. the 8080A.
> >> >
> >> >Since I'm new to this mail list, let me explain why I would
> >> >show up here and ask such a question to begin with.
> >> >
> >> >I'm a chip collector. I am trying to document the differences
> between
> >> the
> >> >different early Intel microprocessors. Not worried about massive
> >> detail,
> >> >just the major differences (PMOS, vs. NMOS, vs.
> >> >HMOS, clock speed, transistor count, etc).
> >> >
> >> >The only microprocessor that I don't have a good handle
> >> >on is the 8080 and the difference between the 8080 and 8080A.
> >> >
> >> >I also know that the 8080 was introduced sometime
> >> >around April 1974. I have not been able to find an
> >> >introduction date for the 8080A. Was it introduced at
> >> >the same time? Does anyone know?
> >> >
> >> >I also need an Intel C8080 or C8080-8 for my
> >> >collection. If you have one, I want it. I have been looking
> >> >for one for months and have not been able to find one.
> >> >If you have either of these chips in good condition
> >> >(no desoldered parts wanted), I'm offering 400.00
> >> >for the C8080-8 and 500.00 for a C8080.
> >> >
> >> >If you need a replacement for the C8080 or C8080-8 you sell me, I'll
> >> GIVE
> >> >you a D8080A free as part of the
> >> >deal.
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick_at_idcomm.com>
> >> >To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> >> >Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 1:21 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> This makes no sense at all, though it may be because I'm
> >> misinterpreting
> >> >the way
> >> >> in which you've put it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have Intel boards that come in versions with the i8080 and also,
> >> >> optionally,with the i8080A, and, aside from the clock frequency and
> >> memory
> >> >> access times, they're identical. The i8080A is essentially twice
> as
> >> fast
> >> >as the
> >> >> standard i8080 and COULD be used more easily with low-power logic
> >> since
> >> >its
> >> >> demands aren't as stringent.
> >> >>
> >> >> The i8080A will, AFAIK, replace the i8080 in all applications
> without
> >> ill
> >> >> effects.
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, please turn off "rich-text" mode in your email editor when you
> >> >compose
> >> >> messages for this group, as some folks' mail readers can't
> interpret
> >> the
> >> >> rich-text/HTML format.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dick
> >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: John Galt
> >> >> To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:17 AM
> >> >> Subject: 8080 vs. 8080A
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Can anyone here describe the technical differences between
> >> >> an Intel 8080 and Intel 8080A CPU?
> >> >>
> >> >> The ONLY ref. I have been able to find seems to indicate that there
> >> was a
> >> >bug in
> >> >> the 8080 and as a result it would only work with low power TTL?
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem was fixed in the 8080A and it would work with standard
> >> TTL?
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this make sense to anyone?
> >> >>
> >> >> Could anyone put this into laymans terms for me?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> George Phillips - gmphillips_at_earthlink.net
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 30 2001 - 18:46:36 BST