On 05/02/2012 18:20, Gerrit Heitsch wrote: > On 02/05/2012 06:14 PM, Rob Clarke wrote: >> >> Hi Gerrit- I have many dead 264 series chip's. What sort of info are you >> after? > > Type and datecode. I want to see if there is a pattern. > > From what I have seen so far, it seems to be the chips made in 1984 > that are the problem with the 264. Back when HMOS-II was a new process > for MOS. > > Gerrit > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list Here's a pic of 9 dead 7501/8501's which I have. I keep all my dead MOS chips, perhaps in the hope that nannite technology will one day be able to repair them :-) http://inchocks.co.uk/commodore/DeadCPUsFront.jpg http://inchocks.co.uk/commodore/DeadCPUsBack.jpg They are all from 1984, but I'm not sure that's statistically relavant as production of all the 264 models was ended before mid 1985 and I suspect the majority . I've got about 150 264 series specific chips and all but 3 are from late 83 or 84. The only exceptions to this are a 318006 basic rom from 5086, a 318004-05 kernal rom from 0485 and a few 8501's from 1490. Certainly all the 8501's are killed by heat, they get ridiculously hot. Bil Herd recalled that there may have been a resistor on the chip mask that should not have been there which was to blame. The 1490 datecode 8501's, which do not have a revision number and are marked CSG instead of MOS, run *much* cooler and only get slightly warm to the touch compared to the others. I always heatsink the CPU and TED in any 264 machines which get regular use. Rob Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2012-02-05 20:00:04
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.
