[ale] OT: Router for sale

[Mike Panetta]

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?

> 

> 
> 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.  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...  As far as I am concerned the only
authoritative source for how much current a PIN on an IC can handle, is
its datasheet.

>  
> > That is irrelevant to what I was discussing.  I was talking about
> > damaging an IC not a person...  
> 
> Is it really? Last year, 9 people died in the UK alone from touching 9V
> batteries to their tongues.... Sounds freaky and it may be, But, then
> again, electricity *is* freaky.

It still has no bearing on the discussion.

>  


> 
> 
> 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, 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
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.

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.  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.

> 
> 
> http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/AN1847.pdf
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> Marvin Dickens
> 
> 
> 
>  

Mike


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale