| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tlccomp
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: Southeast Wisconsin, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Date Code Interpretation? |
 |
|
If I'm correct in my understanding the chip on the right would have a manufacturing date of year 1998 week 06, correct?
What about the chip on the left.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pinkie
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Shenzhen,GD,China
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Puzzle!
Is it fake? or it's made in the mars  ?
_________________
Yan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlccomp
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: Southeast Wisconsin, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pinkie wrote: | Puzzle!
Is it fake? or it's made in the mars ? |
I don't think so. I have 5 that way.
C7973484-0648
C7973484-0624
C7973484-0658
C7973486-2875
C7973487-1937 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chip68
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 1024
Location: Central Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can I assume this date code interpretation comes from some widely-known page in an Intel DATA BOOK that there's a scan of somewhere...? Because anything else is just speculation and hearsay, as we saw with the 1101 batch codes in an earlier thread.
- CMW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlccomp
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 1212
Location: Southeast Wisconsin, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CPUShack wrote: | Actually it comes from Intel
A79734 shoul be made in week 34 of 97
Some Intel chips use CCYYWW (seen it on Xeons etc) |
Interesting, learn something new everyday |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pinkie
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Shenzhen,GD,China
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CPUShack wrote: | Actually it comes from Intel
A79734 shoul be made in week 34 of 97
Some Intel chips use CCYYWW (seen it on Xeons etc) |
Thank you for this information.
It's CYYWW in my mind before.
Yan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chip68
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 1024
Location: Central Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CPUShack wrote: | | Actually it comes from Intel |
Again, let's see it in print. Post a link to an official Intel source, scan of a data book page, etc. 
- CMW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chip68
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 1024
Location: Central Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
None of which really explains the discrepancy Tim pointed out. I can't seem to find it explicitly documented anywhere that some FPOs use two digits for the year. Or is that just a reasoned assumption?
- CMW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chip68
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 1024
Location: Central Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed - and my assumption is, if it's true it's gotta be published somewhere.
Leave it to Intel to be the oddball with date codes...
- CMW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Another possibility is the format is correct, but the first work week digit implies something else or has a double meaning. We know there can be some weeks between the various stages a chip is passed through until completed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chip68
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 1024
Location: Central Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More speculation.
BTW, what plant corresponds to plant code "C"?
- CMW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![[ Hidden ]](https://cdn.cpu-world.com/forum/templates/CPUWorld/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}
