Sandia National Labs SA3000 8085 CPU

(cpushack.com)

52 points | by rbanffy 2 hours ago

5 comments

  • haunter 31 minutes ago
    And if you are curious about the modern radiation hardened CPUs then the current state of the art ones are the MOOG BRE440 [0] and the BAE RAD5500 [1], 5545 [2] being the highest performance multi core one.

    Even more interesting that they both use the IBM POWER architecture!

    0, https://www.moog.com/products/avionics/spacecraft-avionics/b...

    1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD5500

    2, https://web.archive.org/web/20190226111129/https://www.baesy...

  • kjs3 14 minutes ago
    Interesting combination of 'remarkable' and 'wtf' that we fling nuclear weapons around with the computational equivalent of a couple of TRS-80s[1]. I can only imagine the sighs of relief from the devs when things like the MIL-STD-1750a and later rad-hard SPARC and PPC variants came along.

    [1] yes...I know the TRS-80 had a z80, not an 8085. Close enough.

  • egorfine 10 minutes ago
    > Galileo space probe [..] How many IC’s were needed? Over 50,000 for the probe itself, backups, testing chips etc.

    I seriously doubt you need to fabricate 50k CPUs for a single space probe, including backups, testing chips, etc.

    • Zenst 7 minutes ago
      That number was probably shaped by minimum production-run requirements, alongside the need for software development units, along with other factors, like the use in Trident II and other quests we may not know about.
  • grosswait 31 minutes ago
    Very interesting! Definitely some jargon I’ve not come across before.

    “The chips were made on a n-on-n+ epitaxial substrate to provide latchup control, extensive guard rings around transistors were used and hardened oxides”

  • anonymous_user9 31 minutes ago
    This is slop, but perhaps the old-fashioned kind.

    > An 8085 processor that could handle 1×106 rads of radiation with only a 25% reduction in performance, and 3×106 rads with a 40% drop.

    Hmm, from where did they copy-paste this mangled scientific notation?

    Ah here we are, pg. 37 (46 in PDF file): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA063902.pdf

    • egorfine 11 minutes ago
      Excellent find. And yes, obviously this is slop. 106 rad is exactly nothing for nuclear usage.