difference in 7501 / 6510 / 8510?
David Murray
plus/4, the 6510 in the C64, and the 8510 in the C128. I know they are all
software compatible to 6502, but what are their hardware differences?
Daniele Gratteri
news:Xns962A4F9FA2D96n...@151.164.30.48...
As far as I know the C128 uses the MOS 8502. MOS 8510 is just a 6510 built
with a different technology.
--
___ __
/ __|___ Daniele Gratteri, Italian Commodore-Amiga user... ///
| / |__/ Nickname: FIAT1100D - ICQ: 53943994 Ritmo S75 __ ///
| \__|__\ Home page: http://www.gratteri.tk forever! \\\///
\___| E-MAIL: dan...@gratteri.tk ...since 1990 \///
Riccardo Rubini
> As far as I know the C128 uses the MOS 8502. MOS 8510 is just a 6510
> built with a different technology.
The 8510 simply doesn't exist.
Maybe you were referring to the 8500, HMOS-II version of the C64 CPU? The
8500 is simply not a 6510 built with a different technology either, because
there are subtle differences issues between the two and, of course, the 8500
was re-engineered.
Take note, dude, it's years you go on with this 8510 thing.
Riccardo
Riccardo Rubini
All the CPUs listed above derive from the 6502, obviously. Using a charade,
let's say the 6502 was readapted every time to best fit the new capabilities
brought by each machine it was implemented in.
Another good place to start is the Commodore 8-bit IC Technical Reference,
originally part of the X64 Emulator project ( currently known as VICE ). You
can find this document in all the usual Commodore web resources, such as
Funet, however I will redirect you to this link:
http://unusedino.de/ec64/technical/misc/c64/csg_chips.html
The document is hosted by Karsten Scheibler as part of his ec64 emulator
documentation; be sure to check out the whole technical section, for going
further in your investigation.
Finally, the original MOS datasheet, covering the whole 6500 family, is also
available for free on the Internet. Just Google it ;-)
I don't remember if the 8502 ( *not* 8510 ) is included in that datasheet
too, but you can always check the C128 service manual for a good description
of all of its features.
Riccardo
Daniele Gratteri
news:qwW2e.718873$b5.32...@news3.tin.it...
> The 8510 simply doesn't exist.
Go explain it to the people who put wrong information on their sites...
Had just searched for "MOS 8510" and found it was used in the C64 C. I
didn't remember that my C64 C CPU is called 8500.
> Maybe you were referring to the 8500, HMOS-II version of the C64 CPU? The
> 8500 is simply not a 6510 built with a different technology either,
> because there are subtle differences issues between the two and, of
> course, the 8500 was re-engineered.
Uhm... Will have to try to use a 6510 in my C64 C and see if it works or
not.
> Take note, dude, it's years you go on with this 8510 thing.
Uh? Just searched for my posts where I said "8510", found only THREE posts
(it.comp.retrocomputing newsgroup), and in one of them you spoke about the
8510 (you were actually confusing it with the 8501).
And in one of these threads there is written that the 6510 is compatible
with the 8500. However, sooner or later, I will have to try personally.
Riccardo Rubini
> "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:qwW2e.718873$b5.32...@news3.tin.it...
>
>> The 8510 simply doesn't exist.
>
> Go explain it to the people who put wrong information on their
> sites... Had just searched for "MOS 8510" and found it was used in
> the C64 C. I didn't remember that my C64 C CPU is called 8500.
Oh, I am sure you will, from now on. That "wrong information on sites" thing
is really not a justification, as all of us have prolly came across all the
kinds of bullshit on the net, it really isn't surprising. There's a few
homepages claiming the C128 uses a 6509, but a few seconds of research will
uncover it's actually the B128 who does, not the C128.
> Uhm... Will have to try to use a 6510 in my C64 C and see if it works
> or not.
It will. Hardly you'll be able to tell the difference.
>> Take note, dude, it's years you go on with this 8510 thing.
>
> Uh? Just searched for my posts where I said "8510", found only THREE
> posts (it.comp.retrocomputing newsgroup), and in one of them you
> spoke about the 8510 (you were actually confusing it with the 8501).
Yep, mine's called a typo ( 10 for 01 ), while you were just wrong :-)
> And in one of these threads there is written that the 6510 is
> compatible with the 8500. However, sooner or later, I will have to
> try personally.
I haven't claimed the two are incompatible, I just said they are not the
same thing, just built in different technology - as you said. Nothing more
than that.
Riccardo
Daniele Gratteri
> Oh, I am sure you will, from now on. That "wrong information on sites"
> thing
I am not so sure about this: if you ask me if the 8510 exists, let's say,
next week, I may tell it does, I may tell it doesn't. It is a doubt I can
cope with, since I have better uses for my memory.
> Yep, mine's called a typo ( 10 for 01 ), while you were just wrong :-)
To err is human, aren't you human?.
Surely you are, since you wrote it's years that I go on with this 8510
thing, when I was not.
So you were wrong, too.
> I haven't claimed the two are incompatible, I just said they are not the
> same thing, just built in different technology - as you said. Nothing more
> than that.
Where can I find about the main differences between the 8500 and 6510?
Riccardo Rubini
> "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:t%W2e.719058$b5.32...@news3.tin.it...
>
>> Oh, I am sure you will, from now on. That "wrong information on
>> sites" thing
>
> I am not so sure about this: if you ask me if the 8510 exists, let's
> say, next week, I may tell it does, I may tell it doesn't. It is a
> doubt I can cope with, since I have better uses for my memory.
I don't give a rat's hat if you have "better uses for your memory". What
kind of lame logic is that? Is this what you said the nuns when you rang
them instead of that amateur sex phone number you were reaching out for ?
Keep in mind that if you want to keep your knowledge lousy, more power to
you dude, just keep away from those topics you ain't sure or feel vacuous
about. There's enough uncertainty in modern life, we don't need a guy who is
uncertain even about a simple 4 digit number! :-)
>> Yep, mine's called a typo ( 10 for 01 ), while you were just wrong
>> :-)
>
> To err is human, aren't you human?.
Yep, "errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicus". We all do mistakes.
Though I guess very few of us, maybe none of us, brag and are proud of
committing ourselves to the very same mistakes over and over again ;-)
> Surely you are, since you wrote it's years that I go on with this 8510
> thing, when I was not.
> So you were wrong, too.
No, I wasn't wrong, since you're still stuck on it since 1999. Whenever you
took part in a 8500 discussion, you slurred that damn easy thing. We won't
hang you for such a trivial mistake, yet we could still get pissed at your
habit ;-)
>> I haven't claimed the two are incompatible, I just said they are not
>> the same thing, just built in different technology - as you said.
>> Nothing more than that.
>
> Where can I find about the main differences between the 8500 and 6510?
Check the old posts on the topic. Google is your best friend.
Riccardo
Rick Balkins
8502 is the HMOS-II 6501/6510. 8500 is another HMOS-II 6502. Just as there
were variations of the 6502 in the first place. The 8502 is the HMOS-II
version of the 6502A.
From my understanding - there never truly was a 8510. Some people got things
confused or misunderstood. Think of it like this - 65xx = NMOS, 75xx = HMOS
or HMOS-I and the 85xx is the HMOS-II processed CPUs.
Don't confuse 65xx with 65Cxx. I am referring to MOS/CSG chips not the
clones.
The 65Cxx/65Cxxx and 65CExx chips are CMOS chips.
"Daniele Gratteri" <grat...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:hWX2e.1147146$35.42...@news4.tin.it...
Riccardo Rubini
> 8510 doesn't exist unless it was in the C-128D which I will confirm
> to you.
Before posting something, Balkins, you'd better read what was actually said
in the thread you decide to disgrace with your contribute. Daniele did
immediately clarify on his own that the 8502 is the C128 CPU to David
Murray.
Then, we clarified that the 8510 doesn't exist at all, I think Daniele does
not own a C64C with a 8500, so he confused the 8500 ( right number ) with
the 8510 - just my guess. He's not the only one who came up with this slur,
but Gratteri is a gifted one, you expect him to know such things.
>8502 is the HMOS-II 6501/6510. 8500 is another HMOS-II 6502.
Plain and utter bullshit. Crap. Nonsense. Another rabbit pulled out of your
ass, Balkins.
> Just as there were variations of the 6502 in the first place. The
> 8502 is the HMOS-II version of the 6502A.
Yep, and 3 lines above you said that the 8502 is the HMOS-II 6501/6510. Now
it's the HMOS-II of the 6502A.
Have you made up your mind which bullshit you have to stand up for?
Actually, I have a more relevant question: why are you still in
comp.sys.cbm, simpleton? Weren't you gone for good?
> From my understanding - there never truly was a 8510. Some people got
> things confused or misunderstood.
You are the only person I know who can contraddict himself and then
contraddict his own contraddictions in a recursive loop.
Riccardo
Payton Byrd
>You are the only person I know who can contraddict himself and then
>contraddict his own contraddictions in a recursive loop.
>
>Riccardo
>
>
>
>
So you are saying that Wild* is the hominid embodiment of infinite
recursion?
--
Payton Byrd
Homepage - http://www.paytonbyrd.com
Blog - http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/visualbasic/dotnet/
Store - http://stores.ebay.com/Collectible-Commodores-and-More
Riccardo Rubini
> Riccardo Rubini wrote:
>
>> You are the only person I know who can contraddict himself and then
>> contraddict his own contraddictions in a recursive loop.
>
> recursion?
I agree that calling him an hominid suits best with the Balkins character.
Thinking about it, he might be that hard sought living proof our Cro-Magnon
ancestors didn't totally wipe the Neanderthal out.
Riccardo
Anders Carlsson
> Thinking about it, he might be that hard sought living proof our
> Cro-Magnon ancestors didn't totally wipe the Neanderthal out.
Rick, are you remarkably tall and like to fool mamooths into pits?
--
Anders Carlsson
Daniele Gratteri
> Then, we clarified that the 8510 doesn't exist at all, I think Daniele
> does not own a C64C with a 8500, so he confused the 8500 ( right number )
> with the 8510 - just my guess. He's not the only one who came up with this
> slur, but Gratteri is a gifted one, you expect him to know such things.
Are you a magician? Because, if you are not, how can you say that I don't
have a C64 C?
Well, if you are, then you are the worst one I ever knew...
http://www.webalice.it/gratteri/c64c.html
And I also wrote that I have one in previous posts...
Daniele Gratteri
> Check the old posts on the topic. Google is your best friend.
So I have to think it is not a friend of you...
http://www.google.it/groups?as_q=8510&as_uauthors=daniele%20gratteri
Well, let's see, there is just one post from 1999, and I am not the person
who wrote "8510"...
Then there is your one, with your "typos", two in single a post, you wrote
both 7510 and 8510... What did you say about making the same mistake over
and over again?
After that, there's one where a guy says his CPU has written 8510 on it,
then I replied that it might have been, altough strange, a print error of
the name on the chip.
What I have to remember is not that 8510 does not exist, but that you are
the very same person who once ruined a newsgroup.
Goodbye RR, feel free to reply, if you want, surely I am not going to waste
my time with you anymore.
inv...@example.com
Payton Byrd wrote:
>So you are saying that Wild* is the hominid embodiment of infinite
>recursion?
Objection, your honor; assumes facts not in evidence.
The prosecution has not established that Wild* is a hominid.
Riccardo Rubini
> "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:_gZ2e.719773$b5.32...@news3.tin.it...
>
>> Check the old posts on the topic. Google is your best friend.
>
> So I have to think it is not a friend of you...
> http://www.google.it/groups?as_q=8510&as_uauthors=daniele%20gratteri
>
> Well, let's see, there is just one post from 1999, and I am not the
> person who wrote "8510"...
It wasn't you, but you weren't there either saying it was wrong, so you
didn't know it was wrong either. Further proof you didn't know what a 8500
is? In 2003 you were claiming that the 8500 is some esoteric 6502, with no
documentation regarding it.
http://www.google.it/groups?selm=bme8ou%24m0bgt%241%40ID-23382.news.uni-berlin.de&output=gplain
> Then there is your one, with your "typos", two in single a post, you
> wrote both 7510 and 8510... What did you say about making the same
> mistake over and over again?
I think one post, with a couple of typos, qualifies as doing a mistake once.
I've been correctly talking about 7501, 8501 way before, nearby and way
after that typo occured. Odds are I just made a typo.
The point is, Gratteri, it wasn't a typo you did. It was you just being
plain wrong, not knowing what the heck you were talking about, you see? I
guess you do see, but still you are too proud to admit it.
> After that, there's one where a guy says his CPU has written 8510 on
> it, then I replied that it might have been, altough strange, a print
> error of the name on the chip.
Yeah, you said it was a mistake, not because it had to be 8500, but because
it had to be 6510. You're all grown up, you're not a little kid anymore, you
should know already distorting the truth, expecially when proofs are easy to
be found, does never work in your favour.
> What I have to remember is not that 8510 does not exist, but that you
> are the very same person who once ruined a newsgroup.
I check the Italian retrocomputing newsgroup you're talking about once in a
while, and what I read are just plain and utter bullshit in bad grammar,
selling ads, more off-topics than in-topics, people swearing and cursing
Jesus just for the fun of doing it. It's back to the same shithole it was,
before me and other few guys tried to stop the senseless shit that was going
on and make it something useful to someone - failing.
Now that me and those very few guys have left since a long time ( it's
almost three years, actually, since I brought that people to my own
mailing-list ), you have that good ole newsgroup drowning in smelly pig
manure you and your little wop friends used to love. I don't see why are you
still complaining.
Among that bunch of illiterated people, now you finally can play God,
Gratteri. You can even go and say the C64 runs on a modified Z80, that
hopeless bunch will probably nod.
> Goodbye RR, feel free to reply, if you want, surely I am not going to
> waste my time with you anymore.
I hope you'll spend some of that very precious time of yours to learn how to
hit the road less disgracefully.
Riccardo
Riccardo Rubini
> "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1K83e.720970$b5.32...@news3.tin.it...
>
>> Then, we clarified that the 8510 doesn't exist at all, I think
>> Daniele does not own a C64C with a 8500, so he confused the 8500 (
>> right number ) with the 8510 - just my guess. He's not the only one
>> who came up with this slur, but Gratteri is a gifted one, you expect
>> him to know such things.
>
> Are you a magician? Because, if you are not, how can you say that I
> don't have a C64 C?
LOL. I am no magician, but you have to be blind or illiterate. So, you own a
C64C, that C64C implements a 8500 ( check the pics ) and still you go down
talking about the non-existant 8510 ?
> And I also wrote that I have one in previous posts...
I was merely trying to justify your ignorance: he prolly does not own a
C64C, so he doesn't know. My bad, you do own a C64C but can't even read.
Come on, man, and you had some good moments of intelligence in the
past...What happened to you? You're too young for senile dementia.
Riccardo
Sam Gillett
"Riccardo Rubini" wrote ...
Do we have a new scientific breakthrough here in comp.sys.cbm?
Have we discovered that there are now two distinct extant species of
Hominidae?
One is already named, Homo sapiens. What shall we call the other?
Wildstariens or Rickiens? ;-)
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Riccardo Rubini
> One is already named, Homo sapiens. What shall we call the other?
> Wildstariens or Rickiens? ;-)
We should call it Homo Wildstariensis, of course. Now all we need is a
graphical depiction of this primate, possibly while hunting in his own
habitat. Is anybody aware of any detail concerning Wildstar's natural living
habitat?
Riccardo