I think you either did not read everything I wrote or missed the point enso.

Did you look at that spec sheet? My point is, those older CMOS devices were on the market at a time when compliance with TTL specifications was paramount, so that is what the spec sheet shows. If those devices were still in production you would see specifications like in the spec sheet I posted, or they might not even bother with old TTL specs at all. Older devices, like say a 27C256 WILL reliably deliver CMOS performance into CMOS loads. Your design will not fail because of voltage issues.

Question for all. Has anyone here ever had a case where a 27C256 (or CMOS SRAM or CMOS PLD) would not work with a WDC (or other CMOS) CPU provided timing constraints were not overly abused?

I don't expect everyone here will have a degree in physics specializing in electronics, but I would think some would have at least familiarized themselves with how CMOS output stages are built and how they work. There is no need to be a slave to the spec sheet if you know a tiny bit of the science behind the devices. To put it another way, if operational circumstances are different, then the the performance is going to be different. I can personally guarantee everyone here that, if a CMOS device is guaranteed to produce better than 2.4V into a 400 uA load it will hugely exceed that value into a 100 uA or 50 uA load. That is just how CMOS devices work. Find a case where this is repeatably not true (not just a damaged device or something of abnormal design, so that any of us can do the experiment and get the same results) and I will send you $5 for a coffee and donut.

The intent of this thread is to discuss the advisability of mixing modern WDC CPU's with RAM's, ROM's or PLD's etc whose output specifications only guarantee TTL voltage levels. My assertion is, if these RAM's, ROM's or PLD's etc are implemented as all CMOS designs, regardless of their pre-history specs, then there will be no issue.

_________________
Bill

The theory and the math are not tough, so why not go through them.

A MOS FET can be modelled as a variable resistor. The resistance between drain and source being a function of the voltage potential between the gate and the source. When they are fully on, the resistance becomes a fixed value that depends on the size and geometry of the device within a reasonable operating envelope (supply voltage, current, temperature, etc.). In our case supply voltage is 5V, current is between 400ua and 0ua and temperature is somewhere around 25C.

Most of the devices we are talking about specify they will deliver better than 2.4V (Vo) into 400uA from a 5V (Vs) supply. Knowing that this current is being delivered through a MOS FET we can determine the on resistance of that MOS FET from Ohms Law.

We know I = 400uA and we know the voltage drop is Vd = Vs – Vo = 5-2.4 = 2.6

1) We have: R = 2.6V / 400uA = 6500ohm, this is worst case over the specified temp range.

So what is the voltage drop if we have I = 100uA?

Again, using ohms law.

2) Vd = .0001 x 6500 = 0.65V

So, a CMOS device that will provide a Vo of 2.4V or better into 400uA will provide:

3) Vo = Vs – Vd = 5V – 0.65V = 4.35V, or better into 100uA - well within CMOS input specs.
(Note how this result nearly exactly matches the specification in the M27C1001 spec sheet)

How about a more typical 50uA? Rinse and repeat ...

4) Vd = .00005 x 6500 = 0.325V

5) Vo = 5V – 0.325V = 4.675V, even nicer, no?

Still not convinced?

Edit: I should note here that output resistance of most CMOS devices is substantially lower than 6.5K Again, this is the absolute worst case the manufacturer is willing to let out the door and it still easily meets CMOS input specs given CMOS loads.

_________________
Bill

Thank you, all, for the replies. The topic has drifted somewhat, which is partly my own fault due to lack of proper emphasis in the lead post.

The term "TTL compatible" appears occasionally on this forum, and readers (especially newbies) may gather that it has a single, unambiguous meaning. But there are two tiers of "TTL compatibility," and they differ markedly.

That is my key point -- two tiers. We have what I would call genuine TTL compatibility, which any engineer would prefer due to its maximal noise immunity. The second tier is what I'd call "hope it works" TTL compatibility -- and very often it does work (as I was careful to mention in the lead post, and others have echoed that).

But let's not confuse the two tiers:
There are also two tiers when we say a certain combination "will work." We need to remember that the TTL-to-WDC combination is far more prone to stop working in noisy circumstances. Those include proximity to external noise, of course, but other important factors include supply noise, crosstalk and inoptimal construction techniques.

The lower of the two attached diagrams shows that the TTL-to-WDC combination actually has negative noise immunity when conveying a 2.4V logic high. Luckily, the shortfall is small when comparing 2.4V with the input transition point, VT. Especially without DC loading, the VOH of most TTL-output devices is likely to exceed the TTL spec of 2.4V... at least sufficiently to bring it slightly above the transition point, and this explains why success is often reported.

But operating near the transition point involves tradeoffs. Poorer noise immunity is the obvious factor, but operating near VT may also increase data setup times, thus degrading the maximum operating speed.

WDC publishes the VIH spec for a reason, and really you want the incoming logic-high level to be at or above VIH. Although VT is only slightly above 2.4V, the shortfall from 2.4V to VIH is not trivial. I suspect there aren't many TTL-output devices which overperform to this extent. This means noise immunity is likely to be compromised, and perhaps maximum clock frequency as well.

I don't feel this unhappy situation deserves to be called TTL compatibility! It is a second-tier solution, not to be confused with the optimal compatibility an engineer would prefer.

-- Jeff

Note: my limited testing of 65xx CPU's can't be used to predict the transition voltage for all extant specimens. Also, the subject of TTL Compatibility involves current as well as voltage, and outputs as well as inputs. But I have focused only on the voltages accepted by CPU inputs because that's by far the most controversial and problematic aspect.

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

Agreed. Compatibility implies a 1:1 match between two devices. Perhaps TTL TOLERANT -- it indicates that it is not a happy match. (although that word often implies clamping diodes on a lower-voltage circuit...)

But I hope this topic will not devolve into arguing about the exact meaning of the word 'compatible', or the meaning of the word 'is' for that matter. Focusing on the practical matters:

Obviously the WDC arrangement works in most-likely situations, and as Dr Jefyll pointed out, we are missing a bit of slack if for some reason the valid TTL high is at the low end of acceptable voltage. This puts slightly more pressure on better construction techniques, and trying to eliminate that last bit of ground-bounce.

As for pullup resistors. In most cases of one-offs we won't need them, but it would be nice to know how to build repeatable and noise-tolerant hardware... The cons are:
* reshaping the transition due to capacitance;
* increased power consumption;
* possible back current effects.

I suspect we can get away with very weak pullups, weak enough to ignore the above. Although 10 pullups of even 10K adds up quickly...

_________________
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. ...Jan van de Snepscheut

True. I still have a small few left and try to buy them when I see them available on eBay. So far I've been able to meet my demands and not gotten any fakes or duds.

_________________
Bill

It feels to me that if you need pullups to bring a voltage to a reliable level, then that pulling-up is likely to be part of the timing of the machine, and if so, it will matter that the pullup acts quickly enough. (It's also possible that the vulnerable signal is long way off the critical path. So perhaps I'm not saying much...)

For BillO's worst-case of 400uA:

6) Vd = .0004 x 6500 = 2.6V

7) Vo = 5V – 2.6V = 2.4V, not so nice...

But yeah, I know...

_________________
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. ...Jan van de Snepscheut

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

Well, that was exactly my starting point .. to determine the worst case internal resistance. So kudos!

_________________
Bill

Pull up resistors are poor substitute for marginal drivers. Let's assume output drivers can only drive to 2.4V and the system relies on pull-up resistors to bring voltage to 3.0V to achieve adequate noise margin. Let's further assume the data bus capacitance is 50pF, so a bit of calculation shows that it takes 130nS for a 10K pull-up to drive 50pF capacitor from 2.4V to 3.0V--not usable unless it is for a very slow system.
Bill

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

_________________
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?

This will never be resolved. Rant follows ..

The simple solution would be to just not use TTL devices with CMOS CPUs. In Jeff's original post he mentioned RAMs, ROMs and PLDs. There may in deed be devices in these classifications that have TTL outputs on them. However I have not ever found one (not that I've gone looking). Anything made from the '80s on would have been made with CMOS technology.

Everyone keeps tripping over the spec sheets. The spec sheets, for whatever reason, give performance in TTL environments. The spec sheets all give output performance into 400uA loads. Why? I guess this is (or was) a reasonable worst case. Your RAM chip might have had to drive a bus with a few TTL loads on it .. back in the day. This is not the case anymore. Today we can all make stuff that has no TTL in it, even using parts from the '80s.

What we can't hope for is that manufacturers will update the spec sheets of obsolete parts. Take them with a grain of salt. A SBC based on a WDC CPU (or other CMOS CPU) using all CMOS components will have loads in the 10s of uA .. maybe 30uA - 60uA (for a big system). Not 400uA!

Even if you did find a TTL RAM or ROM chip, or felt compelled to use a TTL buffer to drive a bus with only CMOS receivers on it, the tiny CMOS loads will mean even these TTL devices will easily meet CMOS input specs.

I would guess that if you have a TTL part that will not drive CMOS input levels into a 50uA load, you have a defective part. It would probably fail entirely trying to drive a 400uA load. Not that you ever have to drive anything new with TTL these days.

_________________
Bill

_________________
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?

Gotcha.

But I'm really not condoning using TTL in CMOS environments. What I'm really trying to say is those CMOS RAM, ROM and PLD devices we use (and only get TTL load specs for) will do fine in CMOS environments and we need to stop taking those TTL environment specs so seriously because that is just no longer the reality.

_________________
Bill