6502.org Forum  Projects  Code  Documents  Tools  Forum
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:27 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:09 am
Posts: 8543
Location: Southern California
Quote:
For example, if F is so much faster, why don't I just use it for everything?

As others said, power consumption and DC bus loading is one reason; but perhaps a greater reson is that beginners' construction techniques (or lack thereof) tend to get them in trouble with the fast slew rates. It's not just about clock frequency, but rather how fast even a single isolated edge from an output pin goes from a logic high to a logic low or vice versa, because of the wild ringing and groundbounce it produces if the construction is not suitable for such a fast edge rate. It can bite you even at low clock frequencies. This is covered in what you linked and called the "high-speed" primer (entitled "Techniques for reliable high-speed digital circuits") and the other articles and ap. notes linked there.

BTW, the problem with wire-wrap wire is not really capacitance, as even a twisted pair of WW wires only have 0.75pF per inch (and normally you don't twist them anyway, so you'll have a fraction of that), but rather inductance, and no amount of drive-current capability will overcome that. This inductance problem with WW will be reduced if you use a prototyping board with a ground plane and make the wires hug the board, and of course keep them as short as practicable, which also means the board is small and IC sockets are put shoulder to shoulder with virtually no space between them. A manufactured multilayer PC board with a ground plane is better but may not always be an option.

I wish all the gate types were available in 74ABT, but alas, they aren't. :(

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8505
Location: Midwestern USA
scotws wrote:
Thanks for all of that. In summary, if I'm understanding this correctly, for the 65c02 HC has the best selection of chips, but AC is faster and should be used whenever possible for PDIP needs. Unless, that is, we need to connect lots of chips to one output and are worried about fan-out. In that case, we use ABT. F is super fast but uses lots of power, so it should be used only when we really, really need max speed (as with above interrupt example). LS is ancient and lots of the newer stuff doesn't come as PDIP.

As you have 74HC logic already on hand you should be able to get your unit working with it. For future use I recommend nothing slower than 74AC logic, especially when you finally get bitten by the 16 bit bug. :lol: 74AC is readily available in PDIP as well as SOIC, and is current production with several vendors (e.g., NXP and ON). 74HC is actually fairly old technology that peaked in the late 1980s and is not recommended for new designs.

For maximum performance situations, go with 74ABT and only use 74F if the desired device (e.g., a 74xx138 decoder) is not available in 74ABT. Anything that you are likely to build will work fine with 74AC up to about 15 MHz, assuming a minimalist use of gates and a good PCB layout.

Quote:
There is one LS chip I've come across that sounds like lots of fun to play around with and doesn't seem to have been ported to the more modern technology: The 74LS181 ALU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74181). Amazing to think something like that was in the PDP-11.

It would be something to investigate if you were interested in designing your own CPU using gates. I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that I would design that would use such a slow device.

Quote:
Wire wrap. This is partially because of Garth's persuasive arguments (http://wilsonminesco.com/6502primer/WireWrap.html)...

If it's a tight layout you may surprise yourself with how fast it can be run. Your limitations would be in the 74HC logic. BTW, when you do make the leap to a PCB you can avail yourself of SOIC packages, which expands the types of chips you can use, as well as reducing board space (which helps to reduce that evil parasitic capacitance :twisted:).

BTW, be sure to pay attention to Garth's comments about ringing and ground bounce, especially with a wire-wrap design. Your power and ground connections should be made with heavier gauge wire than the usual wire-wrap wire size (typically 30 AWG), as unwanted impedance (the combination of resistance and reactance) will aggravate ground bounce. Also, bypass the heck out of everything.

Quote:
Oh, and the CPU will be a WDC65c02 (already got it). Now that I've started using the BRA etc instructions in the emulator, I can't really imagine going back.

Yeppers. Instructions like BRA, JMP (<addr>,X), PHX, TSB, etc., help to simplify code and make it run faster. Plus it's nice knowing that the JMP (xxFF) bug isn't there and binary mode is restored when an interrupt hits.

Quote:
That's why I'm staying away from 65816 emulators, by the way. I'm too afraid I'd get hooked on 16 bit instructions :-).

I fully understand. :P After many years (37 of them, to be exact) of writing eight bit 65xx code, I fully appreciate the "economy of speech" that is possible with the '816.[/quote]

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:50 pm
Posts: 3367
Location: Ontario, Canada
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
CMOS input current draw is only significant during switching from one state to the other. Plain MOS inputs present some DC loading, as well as capacitance, which means fanout requirements using 74LS logic will be higher than when using one of the CMOS families.
Not sure I follow you, BDD. If you mean 74LS (or any family) will have more difficulty driving the inputs of an NMOS 6502 than the inputs of a CMOS 6502, then the statement seems to miss the mark. In both cases the DC loading amounts to leakage current only. Although the input leakage current for WDC's CMOS 6502 is lower than (for example) Rockwell's NMOS 6502, even the latter draws a maximum of only 2.5 micro-amps -- which is negligible, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
The W65C02S is the better MPU choice, due to a number of electrical characteristics (higher fanout being one of them—I'll get back to fanout in a minute) but also because it fixes implementation bugs present in the NMOS part. [...] Beware of 65C02s sold by some vendors that are not WDC parts! Many are old Rockwell pulls rated for one or two megahertz.
"Beware"?!! Okay, sure; the W65C02S is a better choice for knowledgeable folks whose priority is maximizing performance, but the main goal of most novices is a trouble-free experience with their first project. That being the case, the old-tech CMOS 6502's are probably a better choice than the WDC part. That's because of the WDC's potentially troublesome fast edge rates. There's nothing tainted or substandard about CMOS 6502's from other manufacturers. No, they're not presently in production. Yes, they include the bug fixes.

Quote:
74HC is actually fairly old technology that peaked in the late 1980s and is not recommended for new designs.
Scot, your project will have sockets for the IC's, and that makes it easy to experiment with different logic families initially and in future. It's your own choice whether you want to choose the faster logic families as your starting point. BTW, paraphrasing Mark Twain, I think reports on the death of 74HC have been greatly exaggerated!

cheers,
Jeff

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 87
Location: San Diego
Dr Jefyll wrote:
BTW, paraphrasing Mark Twain, I think reports on the death of 74HC have been greatly exaggerated!


I don't have any HC but have used HCT in some SBC's for glue logic and ran the 65C816 from 8 to 10 mhz. However, I do always use ACT for the 573 bank address latch and 245 data buffer.

I do have a large stock of HCT but not a very complete stock of ACT was the reason. :lol:

Now I'm trying to not use any 74 logic for the future since I'm trying to use PLD's now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8505
Location: Midwestern USA
Dr Jefyll wrote:
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
CMOS input current draw is only significant during switching from one state to the other. Plain MOS inputs present some DC loading, as well as capacitance, which means fanout requirements using 74LS logic will be higher than when using one of the CMOS families.
Not sure I follow you, BDD. If you mean 74LS (or any family) will have more difficulty driving the inputs of an NMOS 6502 than the inputs of a CMOS 6502, then the statement seems to miss the mark. In both cases the DC loading amounts to leakage current only. Although the input leakage current for WDC's CMOS 6502 is lower than (for example) Rockwell's NMOS 6502, even the latter draws a maximum of only 2.5 micro-amps -- which is negligible, wouldn't you say?

I wasn't specifically commenting on the input loading of the NMOS 6502. I was alluding to the fact that 74LS devices have low fanout.

Quote:
Quote:
Beware of 65C02s sold by some vendors that are not WDC parts! Many are old Rockwell pulls rated for one or two megahertz.
"Beware"?!!

Beware, meaning if one orders a "65C02" thinking that they will get a WDC part they may be in for a surprise.

Quote:
Quote:
74HC is actually fairly old technology that peaked in the late 1980s and is not recommended for new designs.
Scot, your project will have sockets for the IC's, and that makes it easy to experiment with different logic families initially and in future. It's your own choice whether you want to choose the faster logic families as your starting point. BTW, paraphrasing Mark Twain, I think reports on the death of 74HC have been greatly exaggerated!

I don't recall writing an obit for 74HC logic. I do stand by my statement that it is not recommended for new designs.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:50 pm
Posts: 3367
Location: Ontario, Canada
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
I was alluding to the fact that 74LS devices have low fanout.
OK, thanks. Just so we're clear that the inputs of MOS and CMOS chips do not present significant DC loading.

Quote:
I don't recall writing an obit for 74HC logic. I do stand by my statement that it is not recommended for new designs.
Oops, maybe my little joke wasn't very helpful. :oops: But what would be helpful is if you'd mention the source of your information. Are you expressing your own opinion that 74HC is unsuitable, or have you seen manufacturers' notices that suggest 74HC may become difficult to obtain? (When a manufacturer's data sheet says "Not recommended for new designs," it implies that production of the product may be discontinued.)

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:09 am
Posts: 8543
Location: Southern California
There are so many manufacturers making 74HC that if one drops it, it just gives the others a reason to continue longer. I don't think we're in any danger of losing it. I would still encourage newbies to use it to help keep them out of trouble from the faster rise times of 74AC and other faster families. The huge, sparse boards with long, curved WW wires we see from beginners are just begging for trouble with 74AC. It's where a lot of us started though.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8505
Location: Midwestern USA
Dr Jefyll wrote:
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
I don't recall writing an obit for 74HC(T) logic. I do stand by my statement that it is not recommended for new designs.
Oops, maybe my little joke wasn't very helpful. :oops: But what would be helpful is if you'd mention the source of your information.

Please take a look at the pictorial on the right hand side of this page. Although the page is not dated, it can be inferred from the curve in the illustration that the page was published at least 15 years ago. Also, the recommended parts page was generated by MS Word 97, which should tell you something about how long ago this information was compiled. Assuming the curve was published in 1998, it would place 74HC(T) deeply into the mature curve nowadays, putting the family at some risk of obsolescence. On that basis, I would not recommend 74HC(T) for new designs. It's merely an opinion shaped by nearly 50 years of electronics experience. :)

Quote:
Are you expressing your own opinion that 74HC is unsuitable...

At no time did I ever say that 74HC is "unsuitable." Obviously 74HC is suitable for any design that will function within the limitations of the logic family. The same could be said about even older families, e.g., 74ALS or 74LS. "Not recommended" != "Unsuitable"

Quote:
...or have you seen manufacturers' notices that suggest 74HC may become difficult to obtain?

I've seen no notices from the major players but I have noticed that distributors are not stocking as much of the older logic families as they are of the newest ones, especially devices that are in DIP packages. That tends to suggest that older families may become difficult to obtain simply because of business decisions made by the stocking distributors: stock what moves and drop what doesn't. So even though a manufacturer may not have EOLed a device it may become "obsolete" because it can't be obtained at reasonable cost or in small quantities.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8505
Location: Midwestern USA
GARTHWILSON wrote:
There are so many manufacturers making 74HC that if one drops it, it just gives the others a reason to continue longer. I don't think we're in any danger of losing it.

No immediate danger...I agree. However, the electronics industry has a history of lemming-like behavior in that regard. Consider the mid-1980s when every manufacturer of electron tubes in the USA stopped producing receiving tubes. I recall that this was almost an overnight occurrence with relatively little advanced warning...at least to the public. Yet there was still a lot of tube-powered equipment in use at the time, especially high-end stereo stuff. The irony, of course, is that new equipment is still being produced that uses tubes. Only now we have to go to China and some of the former Soviet block countries to get them.

Quote:
I would still encourage newbies to use it to help keep them out of trouble from the faster rise times of 74AC and other faster families. The huge, sparse boards with long, curved WW wires we see from beginners are just begging for trouble with 74AC. It's where a lot of us started though.

The rise times of 74AC aren't that much faster than 74HC. The principle differences are in propagation time and output drive. Lower prop time makes it easier for a beginner to get things running at moderate Ø2 speeds without having to work out timing issues, assuming the basic design is correct for the MPU being used. Stronger drive is probably an advantage with the "sparse" boards of which you speak, since they would also be rife with parasitic capacitance. On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend using 74ABT devices on such boards, as the extremely fast switching speeds would be a recipe for obscure problems.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:09 am
Posts: 8543
Location: Southern California
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
GARTHWILSON wrote:
I would still encourage newbies to use it to help keep them out of trouble from the faster rise times of 74AC and other faster families. The huge, sparse boards with long, curved WW wires we see from beginners are just begging for trouble with 74AC. It's where a lot of us started though.

The rise times of 74AC aren't that much faster than 74HC. The principle differences are in propagation time and output drive. Lower prop time makes it easier for a beginner to get things running at moderate Ø2 speeds without having to work out timing issues, assuming the basic design is correct for the MPU being used. Stronger drive is probably an advantage with the "sparse" boards of which you speak, since they would also be rife with parasitic capacitance. On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend using 74ABT devices on such boards, as the extremely fast switching speeds would be a recipe for obscure problems.

I've been searching my data books and the internet for some comparisons, and all I come up with is this page saying HC's slew rate is 0.9V/ns (max?) and AC's is 2.0V/ns, meaning more than a 2:1 ratio. I don't imagine anyone here has a 'scope fast enough to test it? That would be a pretty impressive piece of equipment.

The biggest problem with newbie sparse construction won't be capacitance, since the capacitance of WW wires that aren't bundled or twisted together would be negligible compared to that of a single gate's input, but rather the inductance, and no amount of drive-current capability will overcome that since it's in series with the load. There's a wire-inductance calculator here. 4" of 30-gauge wire has 135nH inductance; but note that going to a larger wire has negligible effect on that, as the same length of 24-gauge wire has 121nH. [Edit, 4/2/14: That consultrsr domain seems to have expired. There's another online wire inductance calculator at http://www.eeweb.com/toolbox/wire-inductance/.]

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 87
Location: San Diego
That's an interesting table, looking in the right column are intro dates, it shows AC was introduced in 1985 and HC in 1982, that's not a whole lot of difference in time. The F logic is 1979.
I was still using 74LS (so easy to find) back then for small projects, I don't think I used any 74 CMOS until the early 90's. I did use some 4000 series a couple of times I think. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 8505
Location: Midwestern USA
GARTHWILSON wrote:
The biggest problem with newbie sparse construction won't be capacitance, since the capacitance of WW wires that aren't bundled or twisted together would be negligible compared to that of a single gate's input, but rather the inductance, and no amount of drive-current capability will overcome that since it's in series with the load. There's a wire-inductance calculator here. 4" of 30-gauge wire has 135nH inductance; but note that going to a larger wire has negligible effect on that, as the same length of 24-gauge wire has 121nH.

A lot of newbie builds I've seen over the years seem to bunch the wire together quite a bit (I saw one where all the wiring was neatly tie-wrapped together—naturally, it didn't work very well), which encourages mutual inductance and crosstalk, as well as parasitic capacitance. In any case, you're correct in that the inductance of longish leads may be more a problem than anything else, and of course, drive current won't offset this problem at any clock speed faster than a five dollar pocket calculator. Naturally, the best way to avoid this sort of trouble is to keep lead lengths to a minimum, and go with wire-wrap instead of patch-board. Of course, I "cheated" with POC V1 and started out with a PCB. :lol:

clockpulse wrote:
That's an interesting table, looking in the right column are intro dates, it shows AC was introduced in 1985 and HC in 1982, that's not a whole lot of difference in time. The F logic is 1979.

What the table doesn't tell you is how costly that stuff was when first introed, especially 74F. Much of the cost in the minicomputers of the 1970s and early 1980s was in the silicon, since so much of it was required to build a functional unit.

Quote:
I was still using 74LS (so easy to find) back then for small projects, I don't think I used any 74 CMOS until the early 90's. I did use some 4000 series a couple of times I think.

I worked quite a bit with plain 74 series logic in the 1970s and was amazed how fast 74LS was in comparison when it became available. Now, I wouldn't give 74LS a second look. :) The first CMOS devices were kind of lame, but caught on fast due to their lower power consumption. I used some 4000 series stuff for automotive projects, but never in a computer circuit. My. how time marches on... :? :(

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:09 am
Posts: 8543
Location: Southern California
Quote:
(I saw one where all the wiring was neatly tie-wrapped together—naturally, it didn't work very well)

I found that out even in audio equipment I made as a teenager in the 1970's, before I got into digital:
Attachment:
Mix1.jpg
Mix1.jpg [ 1.07 MiB | Viewed 1207 times ]

The wires were initially all bundled, but that gave a lot of crosstalk which was relieved as soon as I removed the zip ties. I left the wires in position; but they were no longer pressed together.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 87
Location: San Diego
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
I worked quite a bit with plain 74 series logic in the 1970s and was amazed how fast 74LS was in comparison when it became available. Now, I wouldn't give 74LS a second look. :) The first CMOS devices were kind of lame, but caught on fast due to their lower power consumption. I used some 4000 series stuff for automotive projects, but never in a computer circuit. My. how time marches on... :? :(


Time does keep on slipin' into the future...

Sometime in the mid to late 70's I found and good quantity of boards (about 8in.x11in.) full side to side of 16 and 14 pin w/w sockets loaded with 74 series TTL, mostly gates but some shift registers, counters and flip flops. I think it was a drive controller(s). :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 87
Location: San Diego
GARTHWILSON wrote:
The wires were initially all bundled, but that gave a lot of crosstalk which was relieved as soon as I removed the zip ties. I left the wires in position; but they were no longer pressed together.


But the way they had it neatly wired sure looked good didn't it? :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: