Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

General discussions or ideas about hardware.
Atarian Computing
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:27 am

Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by Atarian Computing » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:34 am

How do I interpret the PCB revision numbers?

In the case of the STFM, I know that C070789-001 is newer than C070523-001, but can you tell from the revision #? Is it because C070789-001 comes after C070523-001?

Can I then assume, that with the STacy boards C103999-001 is a later version than C103421-001 for the same reason?

What about the letters and numbers? Take this for example:
Sketch.png
Sketch.png (264.03 KiB) Viewed 1244 times
What is "2" (With #1 pointing to it)?
What is "[5]" (With #2 pointing to it)?

And then this:
2018-04-26 08_27_03-.png
2018-04-26 08_27_03-.png (301.41 KiB) Viewed 1244 times
This one is a higher revision number than the previous but only has a boxed "[2]" at the end.

Any clue?

User avatar
exxos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8492
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by exxos » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm

Good question, I have no idea!

I used to think like for the C070789 , that it was just the schematics revision dates, 89 being the year etc. Though the STFM was being produced in 85ish anyway ? So I don't think they would have fore-dated the pcbs years in advance. doesn't even closely tally with numbers ending in 52 etc.

Could be last digit is the year like assuming all numbers are 80's.. So C0707889 comes after C0705283

Then would assume numbers before were the week, but "78" doesn't fit into it all there. Doesn't make much sense why both series start in 07 either.

:shrug:
4MB STFM 1.44 FD- VELOCE+ 020 STE - 4MB STE 32MHz - STFM 16MHz - STM - MEGA ST - Falcon 030 CT60 - Atari 2600 - Atari 7800 - Gigafile - SD Floppy Emulator - PeST - HxC - CosmosEx - Ultrasatan - various clutter

https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.

Atarian Computing
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:27 am

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by Atarian Computing » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:21 am

I think I have cracked it and I'm pretty sure we can assume that a higher number means a later revision.

Seems like every Atari PCB has a four digit code in the vicinity of the revision number. I now understand it to signify the week and year of manufacture.

Looking at the STacy:

C103421-001 has wk32 1989
Stacy C103421.png
Stacy C103421.png (108.48 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
C103999-001 has wk20 1990
Stacy C103999.png
Stacy C103999.png (93.68 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
Jumping to ST-STFM

An early ST, C070243 has wk49 1985
C070243.png
C070243.png (241.63 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
STFM C070523 has wk11 1987
C070523.png
C070523.png (360.9 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
STFM C070789 REV D has wk20 1988
STFM C070789 D.png
STFM C070789 D.png (341.85 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
STFM C070789 REV F2, the latest known STFM has wk42 1990
C070789 F2.png
C070789 F2.png (346.29 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
Finally the Mega ST

C100167 has wk3 1990
C100167-001.png
C100167-001.png (802.5 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
C103277 has wk03 1989 (only exception here but maybe ST1 ST2 ST4 had different revisions)
C103277.png
C103277.png (710.43 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
C103544 has wk33 1990
C103544-001.png
C103544-001.png (236.57 KiB) Viewed 1193 times
I'm pretty convinced by this evidence.

User avatar
exxos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8492
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by exxos » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:38 am

The date does look correct yes... But this doesn't explain the C0XXXXX type numbers though?
4MB STFM 1.44 FD- VELOCE+ 020 STE - 4MB STE 32MHz - STFM 16MHz - STM - MEGA ST - Falcon 030 CT60 - Atari 2600 - Atari 7800 - Gigafile - SD Floppy Emulator - PeST - HxC - CosmosEx - Ultrasatan - various clutter

https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.

Atarian Computing
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:27 am

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by Atarian Computing » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:49 am

exxos wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:38 am
The date does look correct yes... But this doesn't explain the C0XXXXX type numbers though?
I think it's just a serial number without any significance. The correlation is simply that a higher revision number seems to have a later date.

czietz
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:02 pm

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by czietz » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:51 am

Atarian Computing wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:21 am
I think I have cracked it and I'm pretty sure we can assume that a higher number means a later revision.

Seems like every Atari PCB has a four digit code in the vicinity of the revision number. I now understand it to signify the week and year of manufacture.
Yes, it is well known that the date code on the PCB gives -- of course -- the date of manufacture (week and year, as you wrote).
However, talking about the part numbers such as C070789, I'm still not convinced they were assigned strictly in ascending order. Note that there is only one numbering scheme for all Atari parts, be it discrete components, chips, PCBs. For example the IMP GLUE is C070714, while the IMP MMU C100109, putting them next to the C070789 and C100167 PCBs, respectively. The STE DMA is C398739, while the first STE PCB is C300779.

User avatar
exxos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8492
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by exxos » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:57 am

Atarian Computing wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:49 am
I think it's just a serial number without any significance. The correlation is simply that a higher revision number seems to have a later date.
It could literally just be the part numbers, and the part number used the next available one in the whole part range which Atari sold.

I guess you could look at this page as it lists a lot of numbers may give more clues...

http://www.best-electronics-ca.com/custom-i.htm
4MB STFM 1.44 FD- VELOCE+ 020 STE - 4MB STE 32MHz - STFM 16MHz - STM - MEGA ST - Falcon 030 CT60 - Atari 2600 - Atari 7800 - Gigafile - SD Floppy Emulator - PeST - HxC - CosmosEx - Ultrasatan - various clutter

https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.

Atarian Computing
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:27 am

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by Atarian Computing » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:00 am

czietz wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:51 am
Atarian Computing wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:21 am
I think I have cracked it and I'm pretty sure we can assume that a higher number means a later revision.

Seems like every Atari PCB has a four digit code in the vicinity of the revision number. I now understand it to signify the week and year of manufacture.
Yes, it is well known that the date code on the PCB gives -- of course -- the date of manufacture (week and year, as you wrote).
However, talking about the part numbers such as C070789, I'm still not convinced they were assigned strictly in ascending order. Note that there is only one numbering scheme for all Atari parts, be it discrete components, chips, PCBs. For example the IMP GLUE is C070714, while the IMP MMU C100109, putting them next to the C070789 and C100167 PCBs, respectively. The STE DMA is C398739, while the first STE PCB is C300779.
Ah, right. My main intention was just to determine which revision was the most recent. Not so much the reasons behind the numbering schemes.

Josh.

czietz
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:02 pm

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by czietz » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:54 am

Atarian Computing wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:00 am
Ah, right. My main intention was just to determine which revision was the most recent. Not so much the reasons behind the numbering schemes.
Note that at least for the STF(m) there were a lot of board versions manufactured in parallel. So from a single datecode alone you cannot say whether the actual PCB design is older or newer.

E.g. this C103175 has a datecode of 42/88:
download/file.php?id=2250

This C103253 as well:
download/file.php?id=2172

This C070789 has a datecode of 20/88:
download/file.php?id=1566

This C070789 has a datecode of 42/90:
download/file.php?id=2333

Atarian Computing
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:27 am

Re: Atari PCB Revision #s and their Interpretation

Post by Atarian Computing » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:18 pm

czietz wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:54 am
Atarian Computing wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:00 am
Ah, right. My main intention was just to determine which revision was the most recent. Not so much the reasons behind the numbering schemes.
Note that at least for the STF(m) there were a lot of board versions manufactured in parallel. So from a single datecode alone you cannot say whether the actual PCB design is older or newer.

E.g. this C103175 has a datecode of 42/88:
download/file.php?id=2250

This C103253 as well:
download/file.php?id=2172

This C070789 has a datecode of 20/88:
download/file.php?id=1566

This C070789 has a datecode of 42/90:
download/file.php?id=2333
In the case of the C070789 you linked (my machines btw) the differentiating factor is the REV code. D for the earlier one and F2 for the later one. That just confirms my point. Now, those are of course single examples. If I see an F2 with 0389 and a C with 0590, my theory is gone.

I earlier already alluded to the fact that Atari must have used different revisions in parallel in the case of various Mega ST models.

EDIT:

So let's say that Mega ST C100167 was co-produced with C103277 as it clearly was, if my theory is correct the earliest known C100167 would have to be manufactured earlier than the earliest known C103277.

Let's say we have a sample size of 100 for each revision. And let's say that C100167 has a date range of 1987-1990 and the C103277 has 1988-1990. If there are no known C103277 from 1987, it's pretty safe to say that C100167 is an earlier design.

Post Reply

Return to “HARDWARE DISCUSSIONS”