10 Aug
2008
10 Aug
'08
2:05 p.m.
Philip Belben wrote:
This issue is another of those recurring topics on the list (see URL):
Subject: Re: 4004 and IC history / was Re: Vintage computer photogallery
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:14:25 -0700 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:14:25 -0700
Brent Hilpert wrote:
Possibly
whatever specific company Intel was contracting with to supply
lead frames and ceramic packages didn't yet offer higher pin count
packages, but they obviously were available from some vendors since
other semiconductor companies like Fairchild and TI were using them.
That makes sense. I think someone said it already: if the chip was a
custom job for a lowish-volume contract, Intel wouldn't want to go and
find a new packaging contractor for it. dwight elvey wrote:
> This was what Federico Faggin had stated at a talk he gave at the CHM.
> Packaging was expensive and they'd made volume deals on 16 pin
> packages. Faggin stated that his design could have been a few times
> faster had he not been restricted to the small bus.
Here it is, straight from Faggin:
http://www.intel4004.com/qa4004.htm, under the
question "Q.: Was there anything unique about the 4004?" or search for
"16-pin".