SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : C-Cube
CUBE 35.84+1.4%Dec 24 12:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: kech who wrote (15715)5/20/1997 11:59:00 AM
From: DiViT   of 50808
 
Ouch: Ok, that's an understatement.

Chip problems, or what they didn't say...

The CL484 was cost reduced down to .35 micron from .5 (which is why their margins remain so good). But as it turned out, the .35 design was more susceptible to noise on the clock line. While the chip still met the original specs of the CL484 there was indeed a problem. It's my understanding that some manufactures, in an attempt to further cost reduce their VCD designs, had switched to lower quality Clock generators and other components that did not provide a clean signal on the clock line. The older version of the 484 could handle the noise the newer one could not. After reviewing the system design, it was determined that going back to the better quality Clock generator and add a 100k Ohm resistor to clean up the clock signal.

The chip itself did not have to change.

However, it's estimated that one of Cubes big customers lost about 2 weeks of production time.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News