| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FDIV

Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 740 Location: Ohio, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CPUShack

Joined: 16 Jun 2003 Posts: 34259 Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FDIV

Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 740 Location: Ohio, USA
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
That makes a bit more sense.
Thanks,
Les |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chipcollector

Joined: 28 Sep 2004 Posts: 1681 Location: New England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gshv

Joined: 01 Feb 2003 Posts: 7898 Location: Fairfax, VA USA
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think XC on old Motorola microprocessors means that they are engineering samples. Starting from 68020 or 68030 family the engineering samples were marked with "PC" prefix. It's possible that earlier processors had "XC" prefix for both ES and QS chips.
Gennadiy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CPUShack

Joined: 16 Jun 2003 Posts: 34259 Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gshv

Joined: 01 Feb 2003 Posts: 7898 Location: Fairfax, VA USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CPUShack wrote: | | as I have seen several late production models with X prefixes, leading to the qualification designation |
Do you remember what date codes they had? I've only seen XC6800B chips with 74xx and 75xx date codes.
Gennadiy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CPUShack

Joined: 16 Jun 2003 Posts: 34259 Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gshv

Joined: 01 Feb 2003 Posts: 7898 Location: Fairfax, VA USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
XC6800A could be a faster version than XC6800B.
Gennadiy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|