8080 vs. 8080A

From: ajp166 <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
Date: Sun Sep 30 20:15:58 2001

Track the clock through the logic... there is a divide by 2 in there.

Also the 9080 250ns part was late in the game and hard to find.

If you want an 8080 that was really fast use a 8085-5 (5mhz)
or the later 80c85-6(6mhz). the latter was a nice part as it
was CMOS.

I still have a potload of 8080s and 8085s and my design favorite
for small systems is the 8085 over the Z80.

Allison

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A


>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 - 20:15:58 BST