5 ms·
I don’t have evidence, but most likely, it is to avoid the related costs and risks of certification of this « new » CPU for its intended usage. Not only the CPU
by crocal 7y ago
I don’t have evidence, but most likely, it is to avoid the related costs and risks of certification of this « new » CPU for its intended usage. Not only the CPU but all the software stack needs to be re-proven safe, including compilers and test tools.
Note: this is not necessarily a stupid decision.
- rbanffy 7y agoA simpler solution would be to use the same CPU done with a slightly newer process to allow a higher clock rate. That would ease the recertification process. If you think they are at best 40 MHz 286 parts, the best that was available by then, running software derived from previous releases that ran on slower chips, there is plenty of room for improvement. IIRC, you can get a modern 65816 (the 16-bit descendant of the 6502) in 300+ MHz. And I wouldn't expect it to be on a cutting edge process. That considered, it's entirely possible most of the time is being consumed by reading the sensors. In that case, the sensor communication would need to be upgraded and recertified.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y agoYes, I'm familiar with second-source 6502. Also, I've seen the Rabbit2000 processor, it's basically a Z80 running at 50 MHz. But I wasn't aware that 80286 has any modern second-source clones. Are there?
- rbanffy 7y agoI don't know, but it wouldn't be too hard. Or expensive, in relation to bleeding edge semiconductors. Fun thing: I remember a 40 MHz 286 desktop at one point. Wikipedia tells me they only went to 25 MHz. That's some overclocking... Fun fact #2: with a feature size of 1.5 µm, one could fit an entire 6502 done in 7 nm process on top of a single 80286 transistor.