30 Sep
2001
30 Sep
'01
1:15 p.m.
Track the clock through the logic... there is a divide by 2 in there.
Also the 9080 250ns part was late in the game and hard to find.
If you want an 8080 that was really fast use a 8085-5 (5mhz)
or the later 80c85-6(6mhz). the latter was a nice part as it
was CMOS.
I still have a potload of 8080s and 8085s and my design favorite
for small systems is the 8085 over the Z80.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
Well, Allison, it appears you're right. The AMD
9080 was the one with
the 250ns
clock (4 MHz) period, now that I've looked a couple
of references.
Thanks for
clearing that up.
However, that doesn't explain what's going on in my iSBC8020-4's. I'll
have to
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
3mhz.
>
> 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
the
> 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
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
> since
> >> 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
> 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,
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
> as
> >> 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
> without
> >> 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
> 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
there
> >> 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
standard
TTL?
>>
>> Does this make sense to anyone?
>>
>> Could anyone put this into laymans terms for me?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> George Phillips - gmphillips(a)earthlink.net
>>
>
30 Sep
30 Sep
5:07 p.m.
I would never, Never, NEVER, in today's world, use an 8080 because of the
multiple supplies. It wouldn't do much good to use an 8085 in an 8080
application, since the timing's different and the two are quite different. The
8085, at least, doesn't require three supplies. I don't know why they wasted
all those pins on things like the pseudo-serial I/O and all those interrupts.
Hardly anyone ever figured out how to use them well. It would have been more
sensible to put the 8 address lines there and save the external latch and the
strobe for it.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "ajp166" <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
Track the clock through the logic... there is a divide
by 2 in there.
You could be right about that. I'm just not motivated to trace it out.
Also the 9080 250ns part was late in the game and hard to find.
Yeah, but it's what came on some of the boards I used.
If you want an 8080 that was really fast use a 8085-5 (5mhz)
or the later 80c85-6(6mhz). the latter was a nice part as it
was CMOS.
I still have half a dozen or so of the iSBC 8024 boards. They used that puppy
(8085-5). Like all Intel iSBC's, they do some things better than others, and
they're not nearly as flexible as I'd like.
I still have a potload of 8080s and 8085s and my design favorite
for small systems is the 8085 over the Z80.
Why? It's slower and requires more parts to support it. The only exception I
can think of, and that's for really small applications, is the
8085+8755+8155/56+8185's for RAM. Nowadays, it makes more sense to sell those
parts on eBay and hire a team to build your app with the proceeds.
For what the small circuit with the 8085 will do, it's easier to use a
68HC705C9. That's the size of a quarter and has 16K ROM, + I/O +async I/O,
timers, etc. and costs less than the stuff I mentioned before, in fact, less
than any one of those IC's. An ATMEL flash version of the 875x supersets they
offer is faster, cheaper, and easier to use as well. Almost any single chipper
would be easier. The only reason to have any interest in those old CPU chips is
for historical purposes.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
Well, Allison, it appears you're right. The
AMD 9080 was the one with
the 250ns
clock (4 MHz) period, now that I've looked a
couple of references.
Thanks for
clearing that up.
However, that doesn't explain what's going on in my iSBC8020-4's. I'll
have to
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
3mhz.
>
> 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
the
> 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
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
> since
> >> 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
> 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,
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
> as
> >> 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
> without
> >> 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
> 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
there
> >> 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
standard
> TTL?
> >>
> >> Does this make sense to anyone?
> >>
> >> Could anyone put this into laymans terms for me?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> George Phillips - gmphillips(a)earthlink.net
> >>
> >
>
>
11:15 p.m.
At 11:07 PM 9/30/01 -0600, you wrote:
The
8085, at least, doesn't require three supplies. I
don't know why they wasted
all those pins on things like the pseudo-serial I/O and all those interrupts.
Hardly anyone ever figured out how to use them well. It would have been more
sensible to put the 8 address lines there and save the external latch and the
strobe for it.
Those irq's are exactly why I liked the 8085. Extremely simple
to use. Appropriate for early embedded stuff.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
1 Oct
1 Oct
9:06 a.m.
New subject: Central Florida Junk Fest report.
It was small. Myself and 4 other people came with loads of classic computers
and I had a fun morning with the similarly afflicted. Nice seeing y'all!
I scored a tonne of stuff including:
Dolphin BRD FDC-78 computer w/2 8" Drives & software
Several EXORcisor boards including:
3 x Micromodule 2 cpus
Moto Stand Alone Computer
MEK6800D2
MEX6820
MEX68P12
a few Moto memory boards
TRS-80 Model 4 128k and software
LDOS
Computer News 80 1- 17
TRS-80 Model 100
TRS-80 Model 102
with that funky little Holmes interface Joe talked about earlier
Boxed Vic-20
Prolog M823 6800 System Analyzer
Tektronics 1750a Emulator Card and VMS support software
First Macintosh Portable with a nice Apple Case
Old timey Televideo 950 Terminal
Micro Design MDX-2 Expansion Interface for TRS-80 Model 1
Tektronics probe panel for my 8002a
my Exidy Sorcerer II mb (loaner returned while there...)
Books including:
AMD 2900 Family products
Microcomputer Systems Principles Featuring the 6502/Kim
TAB's Computer Technician's Handbook
z-80 and 8080 Assembly Language Programming
Apple ][ Basic Programming Reference Manual
Osborne's Apple ][ classic reference
Dr. Dobbs z-80 Toolbook
few Rainbow magazines.
and a few SAMS 8080 bugbooks later rerouted to Joe
Everything cost a total of $ - .05. Yes, I made five cents on the trip.
Joe and I both wanted the Prolog analyzer so we flipped a coin for it. I
won *and* kept his nickel! ;-P Apparently, edicts from spouses forbid
heavy competition for the 'bulky stuff' and created a driven sales
incentive.
;)
While there, I was able to dump^h^h^h^htrade^h^h^h^h^hfind new homes for:
SMS 1000 Model 50 pdp clone
Commodore CBM 8032
Heathkit H-89
HP 150-II
Intel 820a uScope
Sun Dat Drive
an Un-Rommed Exidy Rom Pac circut board.
Sinclair 1500 & Carrier AC controller
Grid OEM'd Norand Auto PC
Timeworks tray for the Timex 1000
...and stuff that I couldn't even give away and had to pack back up at the
end of the half day:
a few Olympia ETX-II computers
Amiga 2000
Robbie Robot
Burroghs Calculator
Micromodule rackable cardcage
Kaypro 2
Kaypro 4
Oscilliscope
DecServer 200/mc
a few Coco 2 computers
There were several Grid, Apple, IBM, HP computers, a few AT&T 3B2s, and
others, books, software, and test gear as well that I wasn't able to bring
home.
I took a few digital pics and will post them shortly.
Thanks for hosting it Glen and let's do this again. Got new toys to play
with. Later!
;)
- Mike: dogas(a)bellsouth.net
2 Oct
2 Oct
2:23 a.m.
New subject: Central Florida Junk Fest report.
Mike wrote:
It was small. Myself and 4 other people came with
loads of classic computers
and I had a fun morning with the similarly afflicted. Nice seeing y'all!
[Snip]
While there, I was able to dump^h^h^h^htrade^h^h^h^h^hfind new homes for:
SMS 1000 Model 50 pdp clone
Mike: dogas(a)bellsouth.net
Jerome Fine replies:
Somewhere I seem to remember a manual for the SMS 1000. I have no idea
which model it is for. I also have an SMS 1000 (which is the model I presume
the manual is for - if I can find it - don't use it really any more since a BA23
is far more useful) with one 8" RX03 like floppy and built in hard drive (maybe
about 20 MBytes). BOTH drives are MSCP devices. There are 5 quad slots,
probably all ABAB.
If there was not manual, eventually I could make a copy - it is very large - about
2" thick!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
7:03 a.m.
New subject: Central Florida Junk Fest report.
I took a few digital pics and will post them shortly.
Well, my cheezy digital cam strikes again though is still a few years away
from qualifying as a topic for this list...
The pics didn't come out very well with alot of cc gear hiding in the shade,
but here they are:
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/d/o/dogas/Jf1.jpg
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/d/o/dogas/Jf2.jpg
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/d/o/dogas/Jf3.jpg
;)
- Mike: dogas(a)bellsouth.net
3 Oct
3 Oct
12:43 a.m.
New subject: Central Florida Junk Fest report.
At 03:03 PM 10/2/01 -0400, you wrote:
Something besides your camera struck, all threee of your links are bad!
Joe
though is still a few years away
I took a few
digital pics and will post them shortly.
Well, my cheezy digital cam strikes again from qualifying as a topic for this list...
The pics didn't come out very well with alot of cc gear hiding in the shade,
but here they are:
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/d/o/dogas/Jf1.jpg
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/d/o/dogas/Jf2.jpg
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/d/o/dogas/Jf3.jpg
;)
- Mike: dogas(a)bellsouth.net
1:08 a.m.
New subject: Central Florida Junk Fest report.
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
Something besides your camera struck, all threee of your links are bad!
I had to dump some space to copy the Armitron article pages, as soon as
someone gets a clean copy set, I'll repost them.
Please stand by...
;)
- Mike: dogas(a)bellsouth.net
I took a few digital pics and will post them shortly.
Well, my cheezy digital cam strikes again
8481
days inactive
8484
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
dogas＠bellsouth.net -
edick＠idcomm.com -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net