BTW, the 8080 was a 2.5 MHz part, wasn't it? I've got a couple Intel

where they generate a baud-rate clock from 24.576 MHz and generate the

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

> as the fastest 8080[A] was only 3mhz and hte standard part was 2mhz. > > 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

> 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

> 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(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 also, > >> optionally,with the i8080A, and, aside from the clock frequency and > memory > >> access times, they're identical. The i8080A is essentially twice

> 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

> 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