8080 vs. 8080A

Well, Allison, it appears you're right. The AMD 9080 was the one with

clock (4 MHz) period, now that I've looked a couple of references.

clearing that up. However, that doesn't explain what's going on in my iSBC8020-4's. I'll

figure that one out. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "ajp166" <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net> To: <classiccmp(a)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

> > I used to sell upD8080AF for NEC and I had to know my competition. > > Allison > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> > To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)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

> CPU clock > >from that, at 2.4576 MHz for the CPU. That's on an i8080-2. > > > >Dick > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "ajp166" <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net> > >To: <classiccmp(a)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

> >> > >> Allison > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Galt <gmphillips(a)earthlink.net> > >> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)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)

> >> >anything to do with the complexity of the code being executed on

> >> 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

> >> 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,

> >> GIVE > >> >you a D8080A free as part of the > >> >deal. > >> > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> > >> >To: <classiccmp(a)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

> >> >> optionally,with the i8080A, and, aside from the clock frequency

> >> memory > >> >> access times, they're identical. The i8080A is essentially

> as > >> fast > >> >as the > >> >> standard i8080 and COULD be used more easily with low-power

> >> 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

> >> >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(a)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

> >> 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