On 2012-09-21, at 13:42, Gerrit Heitsch wrote: >> BTW, Gerrit - what do you think was the point in providing two +5Vs in the 64? One called +5 and the other CAN+5? Looking at 252312-right, they dropped this idea on the narrow boards. But I am wondering why they introduced it in the first place. > > There are 3 reasons I can imagine: > > 1) Power, 5V, 2A might have needed a different plug I think this DIN should handle 2A w/o problems but In fact I am not sure about the actual specs. > 2) Keeping the power for the VIC and clock generation seperate from the rest of the system to prevent RF noise from leaking. Remember, the first boards had the discrete PLL inside the can. > > 3) Providing the VIC with its own power source that doesn't contain all the noise from the rest of the system which might otherwise become visible on the screen. > > I think it's a mix between 2) and 3). With the creation of the 8701, 2) became less important. I see. I am mostly concerned about [3)]. Shall probably have to check it by changing the supply point for the VIC. Hopefully I won't overload the PSU with this. Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2012-09-21 14:00:08
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.