| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:47 am Post subject: Intel 8002 NMOS version of 3002? |
 |
|
I have several Intel chips that I can only surmise to be NMOS versions of the bipolar 3002 bit slice that were produced for qualification samples when Intel was phasing out their bipolar fab line. Does anyone have any information on them? The best I could find is at CPU-Galaxy where there are pictures of the 3002 in the 28 pin D package with identical D/C of 7951. I also have at least one 7952 D/C.
http://www.originalwoodworks.com/aim65/Intel8002/dsc02254.jpg
You'll also find a D3231 "ES" there that I can't find any info on either!
Anyone know what that one is?
http://www.originalwoodworks.com/aim65/Intel8002/DSC02305.JPG
Last edited by DaveC on Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kosmokrator
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 4085
Location: Athens-GR
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the 8002 must be just datecode...
Looks like custom ram-rom chip to me....
What make u belive the 8002 exist??any datasheet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosmokrator
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 4085
Location: Athens-GR
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Also the part number will be D8002 not B 8002 ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kosmokrator wrote: | I think the 8002 must be just datecode...
Looks like custom ram-rom chip to me....
What make u belive the 8002 exist??any datasheet? |
The date code on the bottom of the chip matches the date code of the sample shown at CPU-galaxy. It is also marked exactly the same as the 3002 shown and has the same squared off lid not common to the "D" package that it looks like. I was the Intel salesman for Univac SCF in the early 80s and their P/N is the one above the B 8002 B...I also have B 8002 A marked chips that they used for qualification testing. Intel was shutting down their bipolar line and a lot of devices were being shifted over to the NMOS or HMOS fab lines and are dual marked. I haven't found any evidence that a data sheet was ever produced since it had identical specs as the bipolar device, but a customer like Univac would have been reason enough to switch the device over. One tube of parts I have shows those that were good and those that were rejected during the testing with the parts numbered in pencil for identification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elar
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 746
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The possibility that NMOS 3002 existed is exactly zero. There is a reason for original design done in Schottky TTL, namely speed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elar wrote: | | The possibility that NMOS 3002 existed is exactly zero. There is a reason for original design done in Schottky TTL, namely speed. |
Maybe not NMOS but H(C)MOS was achieving bipolar speeds around the late 70s and that is why I believe this device was converted at least in samples.
There are several examples in George M. Phillips, Jr.'s Guide that show dual markings on chips. My question is for someone who might have more info on these devices. I can always pop the top on one and get a micro-photograph of the die but I was hoping to avoid destroying one of a very few. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosmokrator
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 4085
Location: Athens-GR
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Opening One will Be the Only Evidence of what is finally.....imo
thnx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kosmokrator wrote: | | Also the part number will be D8002 not B 8002 ... |
I thought so too but the package is ever so slightly different from the "D" in that the top lid corners are not as rounded as the bottom and that's why I think it was marked as a "B" even though it was not a cavity package but made like the cerdip. I have some odd "B" packages where the top is epoxied on to the base but inset into the cavity...these are not that kind of package. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magictom
Joined: 14 May 2009
Posts: 2281
Location: Hawaii
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kosmokrator wrote: | Opening One will Be the Only Evidence of what is finally.....imo
thnx |
Or ... doing a functional test ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosmokrator
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 4085
Location: Athens-GR
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| if he have some equipment to test it yes is the best Way to proff ...but its dificult to find Something like this Nowdays .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kosmokrator wrote: | | if he have some equipment to test it yes is the best Way to proff ...but its dificult to find Something like this Nowdays .... |
I built a demonstrator for the 4 bit MMI 6501s that I have on eBay right now back in the late 1970s but I don't know much about the Intel 3002. Any data sheets out there on the Internet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaveC wrote: | | Elar wrote: | | The possibility that NMOS 3002 existed is exactly zero. There is a reason for original design done in Schottky TTL, namely speed. |
Maybe not NMOS but H(C)MOS was achieving bipolar speeds around the late 70s and that is why I believe this device was converted at least in samples.
There are several examples in George M. Phillips, Jr.'s Guide that show dual markings on chips. My question is for someone who might have more info on these devices. I can always pop the top on one and get a micro-photograph of the die but I was hoping to avoid destroying one of a very few. |
Here's just one that I found in George's guide
533
Intel i3214
Interrupt Control Unit
1974
Specifications
• Priority Interrupt Control Unit (PICU)
• Bipolar
• Eight Priority Levels
• Current Status Register
• Priority Comparator
• Fully Expandable
• High Performance (50ns)
• +5V Supply Voltage
• 24-pin Dual In-Line Package
Type
Input to Output
Delay Max.
Power
Dissipation Max. Supplies [V]
3214 50ns - +5
The 3214 is an eight level priority interrupt control unit designed to simplify interrupt driven
microcomputer systems.
The PICU can accept eight registering levels; determine the highest priority, compare this priority to a
software controlled current status register and issue an interrupt to the system along with vector
information to identify the service routine.
The 3214 is fully expandable by the use of open collector interrupt output and vector information. Control
signals are also provided to simplify this function.
The PICU is designed to support a wide variety of vectored interrupt structures and reduce package count
in interrupt driven microcomputer systems.
The specifications for the 3214 are identical with those for the 8214 [3].
Notice the last statement as it appears in other descriptions where the 82XX is meant to replace the 32XX. Also notice the 1974 copyright as these chips also have. I might attempt to build a simple tester to "fire these up " and input and output some simple logic to see if they act like the bipolar slice...if they are indeed 8002 versions of the 3002 not known to exist anywhere, what do you think they might be worth to collectors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepwawet
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 3019
Location: Seligenstadt - Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason for namind chips 8xxx instead of 3xxx was just to marketing purpose - to make those chips part of the 8080 / MCS-80 family. Such as they did before with the 1702 which was also marked 4702.
_________________
You may use the photos I have posted here under CC BY-NC-SA license. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elar
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 746
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wepwawet wrote: | | The reason for namind chips 8xxx instead of 3xxx was just to marketing purpose - to make those chips part of the 8080 / MCS-80 family. Such as they did before with the 1702 which was also marked 4702. |
Exactly. Note that there was only part numbers 8224, 8228, 8238 and they were all bipolar chips. Even the clock crystal for MCS-80 got matching part number 8801. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveC
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elar wrote: | | wepwawet wrote: | | The reason for namind chips 8xxx instead of 3xxx was just to marketing purpose - to make those chips part of the 8080 / MCS-80 family. Such as they did before with the 1702 which was also marked 4702. |
Exactly. Note that there was only part numbers 8224, 8228, 8238 and they were all bipolar chips. Even the clock crystal for MCS-80 got matching part number 8801. |
I agree that Intel did some marking to match families but if Univac had already qualified a bipolar version of the 3002 (that fact I'm not sure of but these parts were marked D/C 7951), there would have been no reason for them to have a re-branded 3002 into the 8002 re-qualified...Intel could have just continued to mark them with their P/N. Do any other examples of this device exist or any data sheets? That's why I call them mystery chips. I am thinking that popping the top on one of the rejected chips might be worthwhile. Does anyone have data sheets on the 8224, 8228, 8238 that say they are bipolar? Or they say they are NMOS/HMOS? Or do they just not specify? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![[ Hidden ]](https://cdn.cpu-world.com/forum/templates/CPUWorld/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}
