News:

Printed Amstrad Addict magazine announced, check it out here!

Main Menu
avatar_eto

why did Amstrad use sockets for the CPU and GateArray?

Started by eto, 12:18, 26 June 24

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eto

This question bugs me since I looked the first time into a CPC:

Amstrad did not bother to use sockets for most ICs as it was much cheaper to go without sockets. 

But what would be the reason to use sockets for the CPU and the GateArray?

Any ideas/insights?

pelrun

They're far more expensive parts and it probably saved money to do large production runs with the asian factories with the parts they had access to, before shipping the boards to the UK, and then they could decide how many devices to fully assemble based on the current state of the market.

McArti0

And PAL.
That is, things that may not have been available at the time of soldering the board.
PAL programmable, ( in another place)
GA programmable,  (in another place)
Z80 difficult to obtain or in large, rare series.

That's how I imagine it.
CPC 6128, Whole 6128 and Only 6128, with .....
NewPAL v3 for use all 128kB RAM by CRTC as VRAM
TYPICAL :) TV Funai 22FL532/10 with VGA-RGB-in.

eto

Quote from: pelrun on 12:41, 26 June 24They're far more expensive parts
Gate Array for sure. But wasn't the Z80 also just a cheap and simple IC? I would expect that the FDC was more expensive than the Z80 - but that might be wrong.

McArti0

CPC 6128, Whole 6128 and Only 6128, with .....
NewPAL v3 for use all 128kB RAM by CRTC as VRAM
TYPICAL :) TV Funai 22FL532/10 with VGA-RGB-in.

Bryce

The PAL and GA are custom chips that could have required late changes even after production had started, so these were of course socketed to allow for easy replacement if an issue was found. The Z80A cost around $10 for a hobbyist in the early 80's, which is equivalent to about $40 today. So Amstrad were probably paying equivalent $20 a piece and they were known to have failures, so that's probably why Amstrad chose to socket them. Neither really surprises me. What surprises me is what ISN'T socketed: The ROMs. Amstrad must have been extremely confident about the code on these, confident enough not to socket them.

Bryce.

pelrun

Confident or "We can't afford to respin the ROMs anyway so they'll just have to go out as is" :laugh:

andycadley

Probably a case of "If it ships with ROM bugs, so be it. Better known bugs than programmers trying to work around a dozen variations."

Which is what happened, until BASIC 1.1 came around on later models.

eto

Quote from: Bryce on 11:14, 28 June 24paying equivalent $20 a piece and they were known to have failures,
wouldn't that have been the case for the FDC and AY also? Or were those cheaper and more reliable?

Quote from: Bryce on 11:14, 28 June 24The PAL and GA are custom chips that could have required late changes even after production had started
Sure, that makes sense. However does it also make sense for later motherboard revisions when the ICs were known to work well?


Bryce

Quote from: eto on 12:20, 29 June 24
Quote from: Bryce on 11:14, 28 June 24paying equivalent $20 a piece and they were known to have failures,
wouldn't that have been the case for the FDC and AY also? Or were those cheaper and more reliable?

Quote from: Bryce on 11:14, 28 June 24The PAL and GA are custom chips that could have required late changes even after production had started
Sure, that makes sense. However does it also make sense for later motherboard revisions when the ICs were known to work well?



The FDC had been around since 1978 and was used in millions of computers, so both the price and reliability were most likely better.
The AY was also around since 1978 and widely used in Pinball and Arcade machines. I'm not sure what it costed, but it would have been considered reliable at least.
The CPU was also directly connected to the expansion port with zero protection, so maybe they were expecting regular failures from static discharge?

Bryce.
 

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod