Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CMOS RAM HM6264LP-15 vs HM6264LP-10

Expand Messages
  • B. Degnan
    Can the HM6264LP-15 be used in place of the HM6264LP-10 RAM for CBM computers? 15 = nanoseconds vs. 10. Faster is better / overkill? Anyone tried this? I
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 17 7:41 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Can the HM6264LP-15 be used in place of the HM6264LP-10 RAM for CBM
      computers? 15 = nanoseconds vs. 10. Faster is better / overkill? Anyone
      tried this? I ask because I need to replace -10's but I have only -15's.
      Bill
    • Neil Cherry
      ... Bill, I can only give you a guess but I seem to recall that computers of that time were quite slow. So 15 would equal 150 and 10 would equal 100. I d bet
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 17 8:03 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 04/17/2013 10:41 AM, B. Degnan wrote:
        > Can the HM6264LP-15 be used in place of the HM6264LP-10 RAM for CBM
        > computers? 15 = nanoseconds vs. 10. Faster is better / overkill? Anyone
        > tried this? I ask because I need to replace -10's but I have only -15's.

        Bill, I can only give you a guess but I seem to recall that computers of
        that time were quite slow. So 15 would equal 150 and 10 would equal 100.
        I'd bet you could get away with 200 ns. I recall the ROMs were like 300
        450ns (lots of wait states). And the dynamic ram was 200ns,

        I can't recall when the CBM was made but I'm betting pre 1982.

        --
        Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@...
        http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
        http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
        Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
      • Mr Ian Primus
        ... 15 nanoseconds is *slower* than 10 nanosecond. Also, the -10 means 100 nanosecond in this case. Likewise, -15 means 150 nanosecond. So, your 150 nanosecond
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 17 8:04 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- On Wed, 4/17/13, B. Degnan <billdeg@...> wrote:

          > Can the HM6264LP-15 be used in place
          > of the HM6264LP-10 RAM for CBM
          > computers?  15 = nanoseconds vs. 10.  Faster is
          > better / overkill?  Anyone
          > tried this?  I ask because I need to replace -10's but
          > I have only -15's.

          15 nanoseconds is *slower* than 10 nanosecond. Also, the -10 means 100 nanosecond in this case. Likewise, -15 means 150 nanosecond. So, your 150 nanosecond RAM is slower than the original RAM.

          The substitution might work - it just depends on how fast the RAM really needs to be. In any application where, say, you need 200 nanosecond RAM, you can safely substitute 150 or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.

          But, it's safe to try - it won't hurt anything if it doesn't work.

          What computer is this for?

          -Ian
        • Mr Ian Primus
          ... Just reread what I wrote here, and it s a little disjointed. 100 and 150 nanosecond RAM, by definition, is fast enough for a 200 nanosecond application. I
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 17 8:08 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- On Wed, 4/17/13, Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...> wrote:

            > From: Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...>

            > In any application where, say,
            > you need 200 nanosecond RAM, you can safely substitute 150
            > or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.

            Just reread what I wrote here, and it's a little disjointed. 100 and 150 nanosecond RAM, by definition, is fast enough for a 200 nanosecond application. I was trying to say that you can always substitute RAM, provided it's as fast or faster, than what you need.

            -Ian
          • David Riley
            ... As far as moving to slower RAM goes, that s fine for SRAM. It gets a little more complex with DRAM because you have to check your memory controller
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 17 8:14 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Apr 17, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...> wrote:

              > --- On Wed, 4/17/13, Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...> wrote:
              >
              > > From: Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...>
              >
              > > In any application where, say,
              > > you need 200 nanosecond RAM, you can safely substitute 150
              > > or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.
              >
              > Just reread what I wrote here, and it's a little disjointed. 100 and 150 nanosecond RAM, by definition, is fast enough for a 200 nanosecond application. I was trying to say that you can always substitute RAM, provided it's as fast or faster, than what you need.

              As far as moving to slower RAM goes, that's fine for SRAM. It gets a little more complex with DRAM because you have to check your memory controller RAS/CAS periods and address setups relative to what the memory requires. But it's still usually not hard to figure out.

              This is SRAM, so it's not as complex.


              - Dave
            • B. Degnan
              ... nanosecond in this case. Likewise, -15 means 150 nanosecond. So, your 150 nanosecond RAM is slower than the original RAM. ... needs to be. In any
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 17 8:35 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                -------- Original Message --------
                > From: "Mr Ian Primus" <ian_primus@...>
                > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:32 AM
                > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] CMOS RAM HM6264LP-15 vs HM6264LP-10
                >
                > --- On Wed, 4/17/13, B. Degnan <billdeg@...> wrote:
                >
                > > Can the HM6264LP-15 be used in place
                > > of the HM6264LP-10 RAM for CBM
                > > computers? 15 = nanoseconds vs. 10. Faster is
                > > better / overkill? Anyone
                > > tried this? I ask because I need to replace -10's but
                > > I have only -15's.
                >
                > 15 nanoseconds is *slower* than 10 nanosecond. Also, the -10 means 100
                nanosecond in this case. Likewise, -15 means 150 nanosecond. So, your 150
                nanosecond RAM is slower than the original RAM.
                >
                > The substitution might work - it just depends on how fast the RAM really
                needs to be. In any application where, say, you need 200 nanosecond RAM,
                you can safely substitute 150 or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.
                >
                > But, it's safe to try - it won't hurt anything if it doesn't work.
                >
                > What computer is this for?
                >

                understood, no real way to know unless you try. I did assume 15 was slower
                too, from the data sheet anyway. Not sure if this was a gold band/
                silverband resistor analogy and did not really matter in the vintage world
                compared with newer stuff.

                For a 3rd party add-on board for the CBM B128-80
                http://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=514
                bd
              • B. Degnan
                ... nanosecond RAM, by definition, is fast enough for a 200 nanosecond application. I was trying to say that you can always substitute RAM, provided it s as
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 17 8:37 AM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  >
                  > --- On Wed, 4/17/13, Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > From: Mr Ian Primus <ian_primus@...>
                  >
                  > > In any application where, say,
                  > > you need 200 nanosecond RAM, you can safely substitute 150
                  > > or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.
                  >
                  > Just reread what I wrote here, and it's a little disjointed. 100 and 150
                  nanosecond RAM, by definition, is fast enough for a 200 nanosecond
                  application. I was trying to say that you can always substitute RAM,
                  provided it's as fast or faster, than what you need.
                  >

                  Oh, I thought you meant if you switch the chips fast enough :-)
                • David Riley
                  ... If you can switch the chips fast enough, you can get a second bank of RAM without adding any hardware. :-) - Dave
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 17 8:42 AM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Apr 17, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:

                    > > > In any application where, say,
                    > > > you need 200 nanosecond RAM, you can safely substitute 150
                    > > > or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.
                    > >
                    > > Just reread what I wrote here, and it's a little disjointed. 100 and 150
                    > nanosecond RAM, by definition, is fast enough for a 200 nanosecond
                    > application. I was trying to say that you can always substitute RAM,
                    > provided it's as fast or faster, than what you need.
                    > >
                    >
                    > Oh, I thought you meant if you switch the chips fast enough :-)

                    If you can switch the chips fast enough, you can get a second bank of RAM without adding any hardware. :-)


                    - Dave
                  • Dave McGuire
                    ... Well, you can, actually. It s pretty easy to calculate the required memory access time based on processor datasheet parameters and the clock rate. In
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 17 9:27 AM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 04/17/2013 11:35 AM, B. Degnan wrote:
                      >> 15 nanoseconds is *slower* than 10 nanosecond. Also, the -10 means 100
                      > nanosecond in this case. Likewise, -15 means 150 nanosecond. So, your 150
                      > nanosecond RAM is slower than the original RAM.
                      >>
                      >> The substitution might work - it just depends on how fast the RAM really
                      > needs to be. In any application where, say, you need 200 nanosecond RAM,
                      > you can safely substitute 150 or 100 - as long as it's fast enough.
                      >>
                      >> But, it's safe to try - it won't hurt anything if it doesn't work.
                      >>
                      >> What computer is this for?
                      >>
                      >
                      > understood, no real way to know unless you try.

                      Well, you can, actually. It's pretty easy to calculate the required
                      memory access time based on processor datasheet parameters and the clock
                      rate. In some cases (like in the case of wait states) the design of the
                      memory system is also relevant in the calculation.

                      > I did assume 15 was slower
                      > too, from the data sheet anyway. Not sure if this was a gold band/
                      > silverband resistor analogy and did not really matter in the vintage world
                      > compared with newer stuff.

                      It does, though. However, RAM chips (and many others) are "binned"
                      during production. All of those chips were designed to run at (say)
                      100ns. They were all tested, and ones that made the 100ns+margin spec
                      were binned as 100ns. Ones that didn't, but did pass for 120ns, were
                      binned for THAT speed...etc. Then they're packaged and labeled accordingly.

                      In many cases that margin will save you, if you need to get it working
                      and you don't have a chip that's fast enough on hand. As Ian said, it's
                      safe to try.

                      -Dave

                      --
                      Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
                      New Kensington, PA
                    • joshbensadon
                      Hi Bill, Saw your post on COSMAC ELF. I don t have an account on Vintagecomputers, it s too late at night right now to make one. I looked at the ROM dumps,
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 17 8:55 PM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Bill,

                        Saw your post on COSMAC ELF. I don't have an account on Vintagecomputers, it's too late at night right now to make one.

                        I looked at the ROM dumps, and at first I thought it looked nothing like the 1802 machine code. Then I inverted all the bits in my head and it started making sense.

                        Could this system be using an inverted bus?

                        :)J
                      • B Degnan
                        ... Btw ...You don t need an account to send a note via the contact form. Inverted BUS? I have not yet started trying to determine the purpose of the code. --
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 18 5:52 AM
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          joshbensadon <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                          >Hi Bill,
                          >
                          >Saw your post on COSMAC ELF. I don't have an account on
                          >Vintagecomputers, it's too late at night right now to make one.
                          >
                          >I looked at the ROM dumps, and at first I thought it looked nothing
                          >like the 1802 machine code. Then I inverted all the bits in my head
                          >and it started making sense.
                          >
                          >Could this system be using an inverted bus?
                          >
                          >:)J
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >------------------------------------
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          Btw ...You don't need an account to send a note via the contact form.

                          Inverted BUS? I have not yet started trying to determine the purpose of the code.

                          --
                          Sent from my PDP 8/e.
                        • Systems Glitch
                          ... Some early bus structures were inverted in that a logic 0 was represented by what you would normally consider a logic 1 voltage. For TTL, this means that
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 18 6:28 AM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Inverted BUS? I have not yet started trying to determine the purpose of the code.

                            Some early bus structures were "inverted" in that a logic 0 was represented by what you would normally consider a logic 1 voltage. For TTL, this means that +3 and up is logic 0. The Ohio Scientific uses such a bus for their OSI-48 structure. Tranceivers usually exist with an inverted complement, like the 8T26/8T28.

                            Thanks,
                            Jonathan
                          • joshbensadon
                            ... The FD1771 FDC chip also uses an inverted data bus. The benefits of an inverted bus is the use of an inverted tranceiver which are typically twice as fast
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 18 7:48 AM
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, Systems Glitch <systems.glitch@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Inverted BUS? I have not yet started trying to determine the purpose of the code.
                              >
                              > Some early bus structures were "inverted" in that a logic 0 was represented by what you would normally consider a logic 1 voltage. For TTL, this means that +3 and up is logic 0. The Ohio Scientific uses such a bus for their OSI-48 structure. Tranceivers usually exist with an inverted complement, like the 8T26/8T28.
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              > Jonathan


                              The FD1771 FDC chip also uses an inverted data bus. The benefits of an inverted bus is the use of an inverted tranceiver which are typically twice as fast as the non-inverted types. This is especially true for those vintage chips. Another benefit is the simplified tranceiver (only 1 set of transistors) which makes sense for these very early experimental CPU's.

                              :)J
                            • DougCrawford
                              Brilliant! Sounds like a 1980 COMPUTE! April fools joke.
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 18 7:48 AM
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Brilliant! Sounds like a 1980 COMPUTE! April fools joke.

                                >
                                > If you can switch the chips fast enough, you can get a second bank of RAM without adding any hardware. :-)
                                >
                                >
                                > - Dave
                                >
                              • David Riley
                                ... It s usually for convenience, since a non-inverting buffer is usually two inverters in a row (one of which is tri-state). Inverting ones are faster and,
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 18 8:02 AM
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Systems Glitch wrote:

                                  > > Inverted BUS? I have not yet started trying to determine the purpose of the code.
                                  >
                                  > Some early bus structures were "inverted" in that a logic 0 was represented by what you would normally consider a logic 1 voltage. For TTL, this means that +3 and up is logic 0. The Ohio Scientific uses such a bus for their OSI-48 structure. Tranceivers usually exist with an inverted complement, like the 8T26/8T28.

                                  It's usually for convenience, since a non-inverting buffer is usually two inverters in a row (one of which is tri-state). Inverting ones are faster and, back when it mattered for individual ICs, were cheaper. For open-collector buses, they make lots of sense; for example, most DEC buses were inverted so that you could drive data directly to the drive transistor.

                                  In this case, if you had an inverted bus, it would make sense to store the ROM as inverted so you didn't have to put another buffer chip on the bus. If you're trying to disassemble it, just run it through a program to flip the bits.


                                  - Dave
                                • DougCrawford
                                  Jonathan: That was a very keen observation. It ll be cool if you are right! I guess that would mean that data transferring to peripheral cards for the outside
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 18 8:08 AM
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jonathan: That was a very keen observation.
                                    It'll be cool if you are right!
                                    I guess that would mean that data transferring to peripheral
                                    cards for the outside world would have to re-invert before
                                    shipping the data out... or that would be a mess!

                                    --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, Systems Glitch <systems.glitch@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Inverted BUS? I have not yet started trying to determine the purpose of the code.
                                    >
                                    > Some early bus structures were "inverted" in that a logic 0 was represented by what you would normally consider a logic 1 voltage. For TTL, this means that +3 and up is logic 0. The Ohio Scientific uses such a bus for their OSI-48 structure. Tranceivers usually exist with an inverted complement, like the 8T26/8T28.
                                    >
                                    > Thanks,
                                    > Jonathan
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.