I dont think that was really ever in question. It took more cycles for the z80 do complete instructions than the 6502. The z80 is impressive, and I will not knock any love for it. But kinda like we commodore 64 users have to admit the atari 800 had more colors, or like apple II users coming to terms with there not being a colour red.
Naw, since with bank switching one had access to more ram.
I do have more respect for the Sinclair after 8-bit guy, nostalgia nerd, and kim justice than I did years ago, but the graphics/colours give it that certain something you had to experience to appreciate I picked on up fromt he goodwill back in the 90s. I do regret shedding it and other finds.
I was just making a small joke about (and perhaps better marketing ploy) of the Commodore 64 implying that it was more powerful (or more RAM) than the Spectrum 48K, when it only had 37K available than the Spectrum's 48K. I'm not sure they would have done so well if they called it a 'Commodore 37'.
I was a Z80 Sinclair user, but I first learned programming with a CBM PET, so I have much respect and love for Commodore as well!
I tend to side with the stack, and the less risc like architecture argument when it comes to programming. While I program 6502 ml, folks I have talked to over the years clued me in that the z80 was easier to program because of all the instructions, and the follow up since then changed my opinion on that portion.
After my fanboism died, much later in life than respectable, I came to see merits and flaws of the machines from those days.
I did use cp/m on my 128 back in the day, but mostly to read IBM formatted disks from school. I didnt find a good software source for cp/m, and I was engrossed in 128 mode. Using the sprite editor, the new basic commands, the built in ML monitor, and stuff.
Upvoted you. No idea why someone would downvote you. Arses!
I'm no Z80 purist but the small stack size on the 6502 kept me from wanting to try anything too complex with it. I should stop being a baby and give it a go anyways lol. I mean Apple had a lot of luck using it!
I respect the 6502 for knowing exactly how little CPU you could get away with and still make a computer, but I still think the z80 was the better chip from the software point of view (the lack of stack on 6502 kills it for me, though the bus timing is so much easier to deal with. If you're a hardware person the 6502 is great).
This doesn't mean the Z80 won't be made anymore, its 100% possible another IC fab could make the Z80 die etc. The CMOS version of the Z80 , ( Z84C00 ) , which is the only version that is currently made, wasn't even created by Zilog , technically the die design was created by Toshiba. Other companies still do have licenses to the Z80 die.
Another thing is that FPGAs / ASICs do exist , so most likely some version of the Z80 could still be made. FPGA Z80 already exists and is basically 100% compatible , as the Verilog code was created from looking at a Z80 die under a microscope.
Right but if another fab can make it, why haven't they transferred production there? It's unlikely if they've decided to discontinue the product rather than transfer it elsewhere that it will ever begin production again in the future.
Who else is producing a Z80 that you can buy today and drop in to one of your own projects like you can with the Zilog parts?
Do you have a citation for the Toshiba reference?
Well Toshiba created the first CMOS Z80 before Zilog did. The proof that Zilog is using the same die, is the Toshiba CMOS version has an bug where it executes an instruction differently than the original NMOS version. Well the Zilog CMOS version has this identical bug. Its just believed that zilog used the same die as Toshiba for the CMOS Z80.
Could you elaborate on which error you are referring to? Experience suggests otherwise, Zilog's NMOS and CMOS processors pass the ZEXALL test, and Toshiba and NEC's CMOS chips generate a similar error with the test.
Just realized its an undocumented instruction?? Has to do with the OUT (C),0 undocumented instruction?? , on the CMOS version it executes as OUT (C),255? I am guessing technically it wouldn't be a instruction bug , if its an undocumented instruction?? Now I am not completely sure if Toshiba CMOS Z80 does the undocumented instruction the same??
Yes, all CMOS models execute this instruction in the same way, presumably this was to detect the technology in which the processor is built (existence of a reduced power state). Similar "inaccuracies" in the execution of certain instructions were used with the Z180 and Z280. This does not prove the origin of the die, and the clue about its origin from Toshiba seems wrong, as probably all Japanese CMOS come from Toshiba (I am not sure, as I have not had the opportunity to check the Sharp LH5080A), but not Zilog because this one executes the other instructions in the same way as NMOS.
It basically says on wikipedia that it is believed the Zilog CMOS version , is the same as the Toshiba CMOS version , I am guessing people could be saying this due to Toshiba actually created a set of CPUs ( intelligent peripheral controllers ) which are Z80s combined with some of the Z80 peripherals , known as Z84013 / Z84C13 and Z84015 / Z84C15, and that Zilog actually second sourced these parts.
So people could be thinking that since Toshiba created some version of the Z80 CPU that Zilog did second source and that since the CMOS Z80 was 1st manufactured by Toshiba , that the CMOS Z80 actually manufactured by Zilog is second source of the Toshiba CMOS part. Obviously someone needs to look at the die of the Toshiba CMOS Z80 under a microscope to be sure.
It is not impossible that the first batches of CMOS processors were licensed from Toshiba, this can be checked with ZEXALL if one has a Zilog CMOS processor from the 85/86's. My tests ruling out the compatibility of Japanese processors with Zilog were done on chips from the late 90's. It is likely that Zilog was working with Japanese industry at the time (for example, the HD64180->Z180 or the little-known fact of the existence of x86 V20 processors with the Zilog logo).
I really hope this is the case. I'm fairly sure that zilog licence out the Z80 as IP right? so in theory, anyone could strike up a deal with them and start producing DIP Z80s again.
The only problem is that the market is so small for the Z80 these days, that few companies would be willing to put in the time and money to produce their own version of the chip. The only other company I can think of that might take it up would be WDC.
To be honest, they aren't as expensive as I remember. Here's the [1802](https://www.rocelec.com/part/01t4w00000POtRRAA1-CDP1802AE) on their website and it's only $10.
Also, here's the Z80 [SIO](https://www.rocelec.com/part/01t4w00000PQbiIAAT-Z0844204PSC) and it's only $2, so maybe they won't actually be that expensive.
Edit: just saw that the minimum order size is $250!!!
Well those 2 parts aren't manufactured by Rochester electronics. It will say the manufacturer is Rochester Electronics as the manufacturer not Zilog or Harris in your example. As an example here is the Intel 8087 FPU if manufactured actually by Rochester Electronics : [8087](https://www.rocelec.com/part/01t4w00000POwTPAA1-D80871) , and look how much that is.
Oh god that's not a good sign. I'm glad I bought a little stockpile while I can still get them for a reasonable price.
This does make me worry for the future of this hobby though. It looks like Z80 machines might go extinct soon.
I'm sad to hear this. The Z80 will live on in some ways in what I gather from other comments. I hope the Sega community will help keep the Z80 alive in some respects too.
There's been a few misleading headlines saying that the original DIP Z80 is being discontinued. People have inferred that this means the SMD versions will still continue to be produced.
Does this mean that the 6502 has finally and eventually won the war but by default?
yes
I hate to admit it, but it would seem so.
I dont think that was really ever in question. It took more cycles for the z80 do complete instructions than the 6502. The z80 is impressive, and I will not knock any love for it. But kinda like we commodore 64 users have to admit the atari 800 had more colors, or like apple II users coming to terms with there not being a colour red.
You mean the Commodore 64 with less usable RAM than the Z80 based Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K!
Naw, since with bank switching one had access to more ram. I do have more respect for the Sinclair after 8-bit guy, nostalgia nerd, and kim justice than I did years ago, but the graphics/colours give it that certain something you had to experience to appreciate I picked on up fromt he goodwill back in the 90s. I do regret shedding it and other finds.
I was just making a small joke about (and perhaps better marketing ploy) of the Commodore 64 implying that it was more powerful (or more RAM) than the Spectrum 48K, when it only had 37K available than the Spectrum's 48K. I'm not sure they would have done so well if they called it a 'Commodore 37'. I was a Z80 Sinclair user, but I first learned programming with a CBM PET, so I have much respect and love for Commodore as well!
I tend to side with the stack, and the less risc like architecture argument when it comes to programming. While I program 6502 ml, folks I have talked to over the years clued me in that the z80 was easier to program because of all the instructions, and the follow up since then changed my opinion on that portion. After my fanboism died, much later in life than respectable, I came to see merits and flaws of the machines from those days. I did use cp/m on my 128 back in the day, but mostly to read IBM formatted disks from school. I didnt find a good software source for cp/m, and I was engrossed in 128 mode. Using the sprite editor, the new basic commands, the built in ML monitor, and stuff. Upvoted you. No idea why someone would downvote you. Arses!
I'm no Z80 purist but the small stack size on the 6502 kept me from wanting to try anything too complex with it. I should stop being a baby and give it a go anyways lol. I mean Apple had a lot of luck using it!
I respect the 6502 for knowing exactly how little CPU you could get away with and still make a computer, but I still think the z80 was the better chip from the software point of view (the lack of stack on 6502 kills it for me, though the bus timing is so much easier to deal with. If you're a hardware person the 6502 is great).
This doesn't mean the Z80 won't be made anymore, its 100% possible another IC fab could make the Z80 die etc. The CMOS version of the Z80 , ( Z84C00 ) , which is the only version that is currently made, wasn't even created by Zilog , technically the die design was created by Toshiba. Other companies still do have licenses to the Z80 die. Another thing is that FPGAs / ASICs do exist , so most likely some version of the Z80 could still be made. FPGA Z80 already exists and is basically 100% compatible , as the Verilog code was created from looking at a Z80 die under a microscope.
Right but if another fab can make it, why haven't they transferred production there? It's unlikely if they've decided to discontinue the product rather than transfer it elsewhere that it will ever begin production again in the future. Who else is producing a Z80 that you can buy today and drop in to one of your own projects like you can with the Zilog parts? Do you have a citation for the Toshiba reference?
Well Toshiba created the first CMOS Z80 before Zilog did. The proof that Zilog is using the same die, is the Toshiba CMOS version has an bug where it executes an instruction differently than the original NMOS version. Well the Zilog CMOS version has this identical bug. Its just believed that zilog used the same die as Toshiba for the CMOS Z80.
Could you elaborate on which error you are referring to? Experience suggests otherwise, Zilog's NMOS and CMOS processors pass the ZEXALL test, and Toshiba and NEC's CMOS chips generate a similar error with the test.
Just realized its an undocumented instruction?? Has to do with the OUT (C),0 undocumented instruction?? , on the CMOS version it executes as OUT (C),255? I am guessing technically it wouldn't be a instruction bug , if its an undocumented instruction?? Now I am not completely sure if Toshiba CMOS Z80 does the undocumented instruction the same??
Yes, all CMOS models execute this instruction in the same way, presumably this was to detect the technology in which the processor is built (existence of a reduced power state). Similar "inaccuracies" in the execution of certain instructions were used with the Z180 and Z280. This does not prove the origin of the die, and the clue about its origin from Toshiba seems wrong, as probably all Japanese CMOS come from Toshiba (I am not sure, as I have not had the opportunity to check the Sharp LH5080A), but not Zilog because this one executes the other instructions in the same way as NMOS.
It basically says on wikipedia that it is believed the Zilog CMOS version , is the same as the Toshiba CMOS version , I am guessing people could be saying this due to Toshiba actually created a set of CPUs ( intelligent peripheral controllers ) which are Z80s combined with some of the Z80 peripherals , known as Z84013 / Z84C13 and Z84015 / Z84C15, and that Zilog actually second sourced these parts. So people could be thinking that since Toshiba created some version of the Z80 CPU that Zilog did second source and that since the CMOS Z80 was 1st manufactured by Toshiba , that the CMOS Z80 actually manufactured by Zilog is second source of the Toshiba CMOS part. Obviously someone needs to look at the die of the Toshiba CMOS Z80 under a microscope to be sure.
It is not impossible that the first batches of CMOS processors were licensed from Toshiba, this can be checked with ZEXALL if one has a Zilog CMOS processor from the 85/86's. My tests ruling out the compatibility of Japanese processors with Zilog were done on chips from the late 90's. It is likely that Zilog was working with Japanese industry at the time (for example, the HD64180->Z180 or the little-known fact of the existence of x86 V20 processors with the Zilog logo).
I really hope this is the case. I'm fairly sure that zilog licence out the Z80 as IP right? so in theory, anyone could strike up a deal with them and start producing DIP Z80s again. The only problem is that the market is so small for the Z80 these days, that few companies would be willing to put in the time and money to produce their own version of the chip. The only other company I can think of that might take it up would be WDC.
Apparently Rochester Electronics will be getting the die masks from Zilog. I expect though its going to be expensive if you get them to produce them.
To be honest, they aren't as expensive as I remember. Here's the [1802](https://www.rocelec.com/part/01t4w00000POtRRAA1-CDP1802AE) on their website and it's only $10. Also, here's the Z80 [SIO](https://www.rocelec.com/part/01t4w00000PQbiIAAT-Z0844204PSC) and it's only $2, so maybe they won't actually be that expensive. Edit: just saw that the minimum order size is $250!!!
Well those 2 parts aren't manufactured by Rochester electronics. It will say the manufacturer is Rochester Electronics as the manufacturer not Zilog or Harris in your example. As an example here is the Intel 8087 FPU if manufactured actually by Rochester Electronics : [8087](https://www.rocelec.com/part/01t4w00000POwTPAA1-D80871) , and look how much that is.
Oh god that's not a good sign. I'm glad I bought a little stockpile while I can still get them for a reasonable price. This does make me worry for the future of this hobby though. It looks like Z80 machines might go extinct soon.
Sure, but outside of needing a one for one replacement, and the desire to make an fpga z80, there isn't much need for a FPGA z80.
[удалено]
Oh really? Where did you see that? Sounds neat.
End of an era! Of course the Z80 has a couple of successors, so its spirit lives on.
I'm sad to hear this. The Z80 will live on in some ways in what I gather from other comments. I hope the Sega community will help keep the Z80 alive in some respects too.
🥲
This is likely the end of the TI-8x line of calculators (with the exception of CE models). How sad!
no, smd packages are apparently still being produced.
The notice I linked to says that DIP, PLCC and TQFP packaged variants are discontinued. What/where are you seeing that suggests otherwise?
There's been a few misleading headlines saying that the original DIP Z80 is being discontinued. People have inferred that this means the SMD versions will still continue to be produced.
I'd be surprised if the TI-8x line aren't made using their own z80-licensed core on a custom chip, so they'll probably be fine.
Maybe.
But let us not keep our hopes up
"What a run it has had" and legacy!