| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: CPUSTACK moved... |
 |
|
oops.. forgot to mention this ..
I moved my site www cpustack.net
to http://cpustack.enci.com
going to the old address brings up a page put in by the registrar  with a popup.
Dont go there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember I opened cpustack.enci.com before while did some searching and just take it as one of your mirror site. 
_________________
My vintage CPU collection:www.cpumuseum.com
Chinese Forum: http://www.cpumuseum.com/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is not an a very long difference. I am sure I have others with longer. In production pentiums it is common to see 10, 20 or longer weeks from die to final chip.
here is a longer gap..
26 week gap
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
accoring JAC's 287, the SX837 has both 409 on its top and bottom. so the difference is ZERO.
Meanwhile ths SX836 has 406 and 408 respectively, so this is in not the normal case since the bottom one usually should be equal or order than the top one.
_________________
My vintage CPU collection:www.cpumuseum.com
Chinese Forum: http://www.cpumuseum.com/forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hugo929 wrote: | accoring JAC's 287, the SX837 has both 409 on its top and bottom. so the difference is ZERO.
Meanwhile ths SX836 has 406 and 408 respectively, so this is in not the normal case since the bottom one usually should be equal or order than the top one. |
the die code is 9351 though
_________________
New for 2025! The CPU Shack has a co-processor!
Visit The CPU Shack of microprocessor history and information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CPUShack wrote: | 26 week?
looks like 9 to me ( 352->409 ) |
oops, in my haste I misread it as week 35. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gshv
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 7898
Location: Fairfax, VA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I looked only at a few Pentium 60/66 chips, and it looks like the 3-digit code at the bottom ("408" and "408" for the chips which pictures were posted in the thread) is the same or newer than the date code on the top. I'm not sure that the first three digits of the first number on the bottom always represent correct datecode. For example, I have a Pentium 60 with datecode on the top "333" and the first three digits on the bottom "533".
Gennadiy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![[ Hidden ]](https://cdn.cpu-world.com/forum/templates/CPUWorld/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}