6502.org

Mind sharing a picture from the bottom? If they're fake chips it'll be easier to tell by comparing the embossing on the bottom, which I've never seen being rewritten.

Yep, the embossing is different on the bottom. left is the working one, right is one of the ebay ones
Googling those numbers doesn't come up with anything which is a shame, I'm curious as to what they actually are

Has anyone bought from this vendor on eBay? Their prices seem pretty good (not a giveaway, but better than usual e.g.: Mouser) and seem to have sold 9 batches of 5 CPUs without a complaint.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/5-x-Western-Des ... SwNWxZ5bxm

I’ve used them several times.

Thanks BitWise. If you've used them more than once you must be happy with the transactions.

I'll give then a try and see if I can save myself some dinero.

I bought 10 of these a little while back. I have just finished testing them. All are genuine, all are brand new and all run at 14mHz.

This ebay vendor can be trusted and the price was very good..

The "Western Design Center W65C02S6TPG-14 (CMD / Rockwell) Microprocessor MPU" description is misleading (though likely not intentional), since the W65C02S6TPG-14 is not the same as the 65C02s that were produced by CMD and Rockwell. The reader could be led to believe that the WDC 65C02 is a drop-in replacement for a CMD or Rockwell 65C02, which it isn't.

Sure can't argue with the price, though!

Put in for the FleaBay search engine to get more hits I guess. The behavior seems to be de rigueur on ebay. I's not really too misleading though, as one really should read the specsheet if the chip is from a different manufacturer.
Nope - very nice indeed!

According to the packaging they came from Coltek, 83 Lower rd. in Woodchurch, Kent UK - which appears to be the official UK/European distributor.

https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/We ... cQu7KsY%3d
A 6522 in a QFP-44 package! The other week I didn't see it in the catalogue. It sure would have cut down some PCB space!

I started building a new project recently and I selected a part in LQFP-44 package, the MKE06Z128VLD4. I like this package. It's relatively small overall but the pins are 0.80mm pitch, which I find are still large enough to easily solder individual pins by hand. I find it's similar to soldering SOIC parts (1.27mm pitch). I couldn't find a mechanical drawing to confirm WDC's package dimensions. If this WDC package is indeed 0.80mm pitch, it could be a good option for projects that want a small footprint while still being easy to assemble by hand.

Garth asked me to update my stock spreadsheet so I've had a quick count and put the results here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
I know I have some more chips hiding in the house. If I find them I'll update the table.

Recently I found that the 512K SRAM chips I use are no longer stocked by Farnell so I'm considering buying some from another supplier before they become unobtainium.

Which SRAMs are they? If Cypress, they periodically change the part number when detail changes are made to the product. The currently-available part number is CY7C1049G-10VXI, which is a 10ns part.

Incidentally, this product is interchangeable with the Cypress SRAM.

I recently ordered 5x G65SC02P-4 processors from UT-Source. They arrived a while back and I finally got around to testing one today. They appear to be genuine with no dodgy date codes (8817 is reasonable) or remarking. Physically they have the same pin out as the 6502 and 65802.

My three chip board detects them as a 65C02 as it executes JMP ($FFFF) in six cycles and correctly reads from $FFFF/$0000 but a simple test program .. .. shows that the RMB ($07) is treated as a NOP and INC A ($1A) is modifying A ($61->$62). I can't test the speed characteristics.

I may extend the PIC firmware to detect the 65SC02 and boot into device specific firmware (as it does for the 6502, 65C02 and 65802) but it needs a bigger PIC (currently 64K flash) as I reserved 16K for each device's boot image (12K Free + 4K Monitor + Utils). I could detect it in the 65C02 boot ROM but I think it would be better to remove the unsupported intructions from the disassembler and trace command.

Some PICs with 128K flash have been ordered (18F47K40, 18F47K42).

That behaviour sounds perfectly normal for a 65SC02, so that confirms the markings as likely genuine.