8 May
2001
8 May
'01
2:18 a.m.
While this photo equipment is interesting in its own right, it isn't of a
generation that is likely to have been used in the '70's generation
photolithography. The view cameras I had while touring Europe in the '60's (in
the Army) were made of precisely manufactured die-cast and machined aluminum
with brass or steel gears, etc. Those were for taking pictures of beautiful old
buildings and of landscapes, etc. The equippment used to produce integrated
circuits wasn't made of wood.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "ip500" <ip500(a)home.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Speaking of die size and # of transistors packed onto
a chip ....
In a batch of other interesting stuff I received an odd looking camera
reduction system. Looks a good bit like a 1920's Photographers "View"
camera. Used 4" X 5" Ferroxoplates. It [unlike the 20's version] is
built entirely of metal [heavy --about 25 pounds]. It is supposed to
have been used to reduce chip drawings down to actual production die
size. No name anywhere .. almost looks to be lab or shop built. I've
posted a couple of pix at:
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipmain.JPG
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipart.JPG
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipback.JPG
The second picture is of the only exposed "plate" that came with the
system. Third pix showing the back and partial interior is interesting
in that the plate is held to the back by vacuum. A hose runs out the
back and the vacuum acts through tiny channels milled into the back of
the camera. Any thoughts or comments appreciated. NO APPRAISELS are
solicited!
Thanks, Craig
Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> Real data is nice, but I find it odd that the 6502 shows up with so much
more
> die size when the transistor count matches the
6800 so closely. The Z80,
and
> 6502 were both presumably built with more or less
the same design rules,
and, as
> one might expect, the 6800 and 6502 should have
approximately the same
> transistor count, having approximately the same internal resources. Note
how
> the figure for the 8085 tracks the Z80 figure,
scaled back for the fact it
(the
> 8085) lacks the alternate register set,
approximately. I don't trust the
> indicated die-size, however, since, back in '76, when the 650x series was
new,
> it was reputed to have the smallest die size of
any of the then-current
8-bit
> CPU's. After all, that's how they (MOS
Technology) bought their market
share.
> Everything seems to fit, with the exception of
that die size figure in this
> case.
>
> The 8008 was a couple of generations earlier than the 8085, but the 8085,
6502,
> and Z80 were all built in the same geometry. The
8080 and 6800 were both
about
> the same generation, hence also built in the same
design rules and geometry.
> Note that the 1802 die is bigger, being a CMOS device.
>
> The die size for the 68K also seems to match what I remember of the die that
was
> glued to my datasheet at that sales pitch I
mentioned in an earlier post.
Keep
> in mind, however, that the area was 1/4 that of
the previous generation, as
> there had been a halving of the drawn channel widths. While I believe that
the
> transistor count may have been more of a
marketing ploy than a reliable
count,
> if you take into consideration the relatively
large register size and count
> contained in the 68K and combine that with the substantially smaller
geometry
in
> which it was fabricated, it seems to match up
with the majority of the
remaining
figures.
Dick