On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:32 PM <groepaz_at_gmx.net> wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2021, 22:19:44 CET schrieb Francesco Messineo: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:08 PM <groepaz_at_gmx.net> wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2021, 22:00:53 CET schrieb Francesco Messineo: > > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:58 PM Gerrit Heitsch > > > > > > > > <gerrit_at_laosinh.s.bawue.de> wrote: > > > > > (*) I think only the 8500/6510 pair cannot be told apart via software. > > > > > > > > I have had success with this but I still need to make some other tests > > > > to have a reliable routine. > > > > I only have 2 x 8500 at home, so my sample size is very limited. > > > > > > testing the bit fade time of the CPU port? > > > > of course, I can't think about any other way. > > > > This is a reliable indicator of die temperature, since gate leakage is > > function of the die temperature. It's very different between > > NMOS and HMOS-II. However I've found some broken 6510 that couldn't be > > tested (the "1" level fades before it can even be read > > back). > > It's not reliable for telling them apart from my experience... you get a quite > high success rate, but still not 100% my 8500 when very well warm are still slower than a very cold 6510, so my limited sample size is 100% reliable. However, I've also found the 6510 of some friends to give a bit too broad results. Of course the loop must run with VIC-II blanked and interrupts disabled. I have another idea about a test but I've never had the time to write some code for it. It would *maybe* work if the input gates of the bits 6 and 7 are very close in the die. FrankReceived on 2021-01-10 23:01:13
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.