Half bad 2716s was:Re: 8" hard sectored floppies

From: Dwight K. Elvey <dwight.elvey_at_amd.com>
Date: Fri Jun 4 17:23:39 2004

>From: "Pete Turnbull" <pete_at_dunnington.u-net.com>
>
>On Jun 4, 14:14, Joe R. wrote:
>> Dwight,
>>
>> I have a programmer that's suppsoed to be for the intel 2704 and
>2708.
>> I've never seen any info on the 2704 and I've never seen one but I'm
>> guessing that it's a half bad 2708. Do you know any more about it?
>
>Maybe. If so it must have been identified before the leads were added,
>because the Intel Data Catalogue 1976 lists both 2704 and 2708 on the
>same page, and the only difference is pin 22. On a 2708, that's A9, on
>a 2704 it's always 0V (always 0V, cf 2716/2758 below). No pictures,
>unfortunately, so no immediate way to tell if the dies look the same.
>
>Interestingly, the 1976 book doesn't list anything bigger than a 2708.
> So a 2708 obviously wasn't a half-bad 2716 (at least, Intel ones
>weren't).

Hi
 No, I was talking about Intel's 2508( maybe 2758 from your later
note ), not the 2708 that was a multi-voltage part.
Dwight

>
>The 1979 Data Catalogue lists the 2704 only as a footnote to the 2708
>description, and the 2716 appears only as a single-rail version. I
>thought they did both, but I must have been thinking of another
>manufacturer.
>
>The 1979 book lists 2716, 2732, and 2578. The 2758 has exactly the
>same power consumption, access times, programming, and pinout as the
>2716, except that pin 19 is A10 on a 2716 and is AR on a 2758. AR is
>"select reference input voltage". The tables show this as always Vil
>(ie, 0V) but in one place only, the small print says that it's always
>0V *except* for devices labelled "2758 S1865", when it needs to be Vih
>(+5V). Hmm, that sounds exactly like Dwight's description of a half
>bad chip to me :-)
>
>
>--
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Network Manager
> University of York
>
Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 17:23:39 BST