Re: VIC-42

From: Anders Carlsson <>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:58:00 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Den 2021-06-18 kl. 11:22, skrev
> Checking the second video I linked-to, it surely doesn't expose any of 
> the typical fakes' attributes. The dude's final assertion might make 
> some sense.
>> Someone should decap one :)
> Absolutely!

This chip has also been discussed in the Facebook group Commodore 
International Historical Society. Everyone of the old alumni have 
confirmed, either directly or indirectly, that they have no recollection 
of a chip with this name.

Some people have brought out the theory that it would be a 6562/6563 
chip, i.e. the VIC-40 one that was supposed to be driven with fast SRAM 
before the VIC-II was developed. I believe this theory doesn't hold 
water because the VIC-40 must've been cancelled well ahead of the C64 
was released in July-August 1982, and here we're looking at chips with 
date stamps weeks 9-18 of 1983, i.e. a good six months after the C64 
reached the market.

If Commodore still wanted a cheaper alternative, there was the MAX 
Machine that was planned for worldwide release but only made it to 
Japan. Also the TED project must've been initiated (in Japan?) in the 
spring of 1983 as the first developer boards were sent out in August.

Unless it is a modern fake, it could be a ploy chip from back in the 
day. It has been pointed out that prototype chips usually were ceramic 
and the plastic casing wasn't used until larger production runs.

I realized that the 6530 RRIOT comes in many variations of which numbers 
01-40 and 44-50 are recognized on Wikipedia. Some of those chips have 
other part numbers though. My idea is that perhaps -42 is another RRIOT 
variation but I don't know why the prefix VIC would be used with that. 
Also I don't know if the numbering of those RRIOT chips makes room for 
another one in the spring of 1983.

I found a reseller first offering these chips for $5.95 each. The one on 
eBay first charged $9.95, but once he had sold 20 in a day he raised his 
price first to $39.95 and then $49.95 as he suddenly saw there was a 
demand for them. That kind of action is strange. If he figured out the 
chip is super rare to begin with, why list it at $9.95?

I still think these chips are well made fakes, even if neither alcohol 
nor acetone are able to wipe off the print.

Best regards

Anders Carlsson
Received on 2021-06-18 17:00:03

Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.