[ale] OT: Router for sale

Sun Jan 26 19:03:03 EST 2003

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 03:03, Mike Panetta wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 14:43, Marvin Dickens wrote:
> 
> > > What do wave forms have to do with anything?  
> > 
> > Long wave forms are indicative of AC power which will kill any CMOS
> > device even at extremely low amperage.
> 
> Ok, I have never heard of this.  Have any links to an explanation?
> 

Chop the top of an ac wave form off and what do you have? If you don't
know, I'm not gonna tell you.

> 
> > 
> > Consider the following:
> > 
> > Device		Process	Current	Shrink	Current	Die(shrunk)  Ref
> > 1Gb  DRAM	.16um	 240mA	.16um	 240mA	576mm^2	     [Yoo96]
> > StrongARM/200/1	.35um 	 550mA	.16um	 275mA	 12mm^2	     [Mon96]
> > PPC/200/2	.50um	1600mA	.16um	 355mA	  9mm^2      [San96]
> > DEC Alpha/433/4	.35um  12500mA	.16um   6250mA	 52mm^2	     [Gron96]
> > 
> > The above stats were given in papers by each respective manufacturer at 
> > ISSCC in 1996 at the University of Texas. Here is the link:
> > 
> > http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/courses/ee382c/lectures/00_welcome/project2.html
> > 
> > Naturally, MOT presented the one about the PPC. 20mA has a long way to
> > go in order to reach 220mA. Also, just so you know, some of the newer
> > PPC chips rate *WAY* at over 550mA. 
> 
> That data is irrelevant. 

It's not irrelevant. These are what you call facts.

 They are discussing the power usage of the
> chip, NOT how much power a SINGLE PIN can handle.  Read the information
> before using it in a debate please...  

I did read the article. Further, regardless of what you say, 355mA is
the lowest common denomenator regarding current in that chip: Any single
pin on the device can take a max of 355mA. 1600mA is the total max.

> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > If you design boards then you know that MOT began offering PPC chips in
> > BGA only 24 months ago. They were forced into it due to thermal
> > considerations. Up until that time, they offered them in many package
> > formats. Further, it was such a big deal that MOT published legacy
> > upgrade manuals to go from the TQFP to the BGA footprint. Here is an
> > example of such a manual:
> > 
> > "Upgrading MC68328 or MC68EZ328 System CPU to MC68VZ328" Copyrighted and
> > published in 2000 by MOT. You can get it here:
> 
> 1.  Thats not a PowerPC chip its a 68000 based chip,

Previously in this thread, you said that most of the MOT processors
were  BGA... So, what's wrong with this MOT processor? It's not eol...

 2.  The 24 month
> figure is wrong as far as I know, as the last PPC chip Motorola made in
> a non BGA package was the MPC601, which is not even made anymore. 

The 604 was manufactured in non BGA and it was made after the 601.

 The
> MPC8xx series of chips have always been BGA's and they have been out for
> way more then 2 years, I even have a databook that is older than that
> for an MPC860.  Thats only one example.  You obviously did not take a
> close enough look at the Motorola web page.
> 
> To help you in your next response, here is a link to motorolas PowerPC
> product line:
> 
> http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=01M0ylsbTdG
> 
> Ahh, I just took a look, and the MPC509 and earlier MPC603's were also
> in non BGA packages, but they are also EOL.

Are you really suprised? I stated that it was a legacy manual which
indicates replacing eol product with new product. It supports my
statement that in late 2000, MOT was telling people to use the BGA style
of this chip because other packages were now obsolete... 
> 
> And just to disprove your 24 month assessment on BGA packaging for
> Motorola PPC chips, here are two there were in BGA packages in 1997,
> thats more then 5 years ago.  

I never said they didn't make BGA stuff before two years ago. Only that
they did it when there were thermal considerations that required it.

This is a link to thermal modeling the BGA
> package of a MPC603, MPC604. Notice the release date of the
> specifications for the chips in the refrences section of the text.
> 
> http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC603_604THRMWP.pdf
> 
> So they have been using BGA packages for at least 5 years.

Once again, I never said they were not using BGA five years ago, only
that they used it when they had to. 

This debate is silly. Think whatever you want to. It's a free country. 
FWIW, I've got the entire development data set (Current, as of the last
seminar I took at MOT about 10 months ago...) for the PPC in book form
at my office. This week, when I get a chance, I'll scan the page for the
PPC/200 and email it to you (Off list, so I don't bore other people with
this stuff...) so you can see for yourself that it's 355mA on any pin.

Best regards

Marvin Dickens

 This is a digitally signed message part