| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debs3759
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 9477
Location: Northampton, Divided Kingdom
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The SX962 I had in my collection was also iCOMP 810. Although most A80502-100 were iCOMP 815, I do believe in this case that the 815 is a fake 
_________________
My graphics card database can be found at http://www.gpuzoo.com.
I can resist anything except temptation.
Debs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| debs3759 wrote: | | The SX962 I had in my collection was also iCOMP 810. Although most A80502-100 were iCOMP 815, I do believe in this case that the 815 is a fake |
Deb,
is there any documention that some of the early 100s were marked with a iComp 810 instead of 815 
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world:
those who understand binary and those who don't. ~Author Unknown
http://www.x86-guide.net/Neon-WA/en/collection.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debs3759
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 9477
Location: Northampton, Divided Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neon_WA wrote: | | debs3759 wrote: | | The SX962 I had in my collection was also iCOMP 810. Although most A80502-100 were iCOMP 815, I do believe in this case that the 815 is a fake |
Deb,
is there any documention that some of the early 100s were marked with a iComp 810 instead of 815 |
Hmm, having just checked several collections and the spec updates, it appears that only a very small number are known with iCOMP 810, and officially the only correct value for iCOMP is 815.
As such, I take back what I said and agree that the second chips is fake. I do however think the surface of the ceramic on the 815 in this case looks wrong, so will not state that I think it is genuine as without more evidence in this one case I am not sure...
_________________
My graphics card database can be found at http://www.gpuzoo.com.
I can resist anything except temptation.
Debs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| debs3759 wrote: | Hmm, having just checked several collections and the spec updates, it appears that only a very small number are known with iCOMP 810, and officially the only correct value for iCOMP is 815.
|
i will have to do some research and see if any info on the iCOMP comes to light... my sort of fun
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world:
those who understand binary and those who don't. ~Author Unknown
http://www.x86-guide.net/Neon-WA/en/collection.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosmokrator
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 4085
Location: Athens-GR
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| also the made-copyrights (M)(C) are a bit strange right??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oi
Thats my chip. I thought it looked familiar
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neon_WA wrote: | iCOMP = 815 (edit by CPUShack: sorted by date)
|
I thought it was already  did i stuff up 
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world:
those who understand binary and those who don't. ~Author Unknown
http://www.x86-guide.net/Neon-WA/en/collection.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CPUShack
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 34259
Location: State of Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neon_WA wrote: | | Neon_WA wrote: | iCOMP = 815 (edit by CPUShack: sorted by date)
|
I thought it was already did i stuff up |
LOL apparently so cause there were 2-3 out of order
_________________
New for 2025! The CPU Shack has a co-processor!
Visit The CPU Shack of microprocessor history and information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon_WA
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 7146
Location: Margaret River, West Australia
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
it would be nice to test the processors with an iComp of 810 to see if anything could be learnt from it
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world:
those who understand binary and those who don't. ~Author Unknown
http://www.x86-guide.net/Neon-WA/en/collection.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![[ Hidden ]](https://cdn.cpu-world.com/forum/templates/CPUWorld/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}
