[HN Gopher] A CT scanner reveals surprises inside the 386 proces...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A CT scanner reveals surprises inside the 386 processor's ceramic
       package
        
       Author : robin_reala
       Score  : 138 points
       Date   : 2025-08-09 17:17 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.righto.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.righto.com)
        
       | kens wrote:
       | Author here for all your CT scanning questions :-)
        
         | OptionOfT wrote:
         | What is your CPU's yearly deductible?
        
         | loa_in_ wrote:
         | Is the CPU destroyed by the process or did you reassemble this
         | particular specimen?
        
           | kens wrote:
           | I took the metal lid off the chip to improve the scan
           | quality. If I had left the chip intact, it would probably be
           | fine. (I assume the X-ray levels are low enough to avoid
           | damage, but I haven't confirmed that.)
        
         | johnklos wrote:
         | This isn't about CT scanning, but about the chip itself.
         | 
         | Since the bond wires are just hanging out in air, does this
         | mean that a chip like this could be ruined by dropping it which
         | might cause the bond wires to move enough to short something?
         | 
         | Thanks for all your hard work!
        
         | imoverclocked wrote:
         | Does it look like the _almost_ connected pins could have been
         | purposely severed during production? ie: could they have been
         | connected and then using a calculated pulse of power,
         | disconnected?
        
           | kens wrote:
           | If they installed wire bonds and removed them, there would be
           | visible remnants on the die, which aren't there.
        
         | TZubiri wrote:
         | What CT scanner was used? The images are surprisingly detailed
         | for something so small, while we are used to coarser scales of
         | human anatomy.
        
           | kens wrote:
           | It's a Lumafield scanner, but I don't know the specific
           | model.
        
         | bunabhucan wrote:
         | What is the last node/cpu that had the smallest features
         | visible at optical microscope scales?
        
         | s1110 wrote:
         | Genuine question: the website doesn't work in Russia. Did you
         | restrict the access or is it my ISP doing that? Someone tries
         | to prevent me from studying of very niche info on ancient Intel
         | CPUs. Thanks! P.S. Big fan of your work!
        
       | Mountain_Skies wrote:
       | > From the circuitry on the die, this pin appears to be an
       | output. If someone with a 386 chip hooks this pin to an
       | oscilloscope, maybe they will see something interesting.
       | 
       | Would be a fun surprise if the 386 had its own Halt and Catch
       | Fire mode.
        
       | mrlonglong wrote:
       | Where's A0 and A1?
        
         | kens wrote:
         | Since the 386 is a 32-bit processor, the address specifies a
         | 32-bit word and doesn't use address bits A0 and A1. But what if
         | you just want to read a byte or a 16-bit word? The trick is
         | that the 386 provides four Byte Enable outputs (BE0#-BE3#) that
         | indicate which bytes in the word are being transferred. Of
         | course, it's not that simple. If the lower 16 bits of the data
         | bus aren't being used, the upper 16 bits of the data bus are
         | duplicated on the lower 16 bits to make 16-bit buses more
         | efficient (somehow).
        
           | mrlonglong wrote:
           | Neat, saves two wires.
        
             | phire wrote:
             | Yes and no. You replaced two address pins with four byte
             | enable pins.
             | 
             | But the byte enable pins also implicitly communicate size,
             | which would otherwise require another two pins. So this
             | byte enable scheme breaks even (at least for chips with
             | 16bit or 32bit buses).
             | 
             | The main goal is simplify the design of the motherboard.
        
       | gregsadetsky wrote:
       | Hey @kens, congrats on the page! Extremely super small usability
       | note/suggestion: if you changed your inputs (above the tool that
       | lets you see all of the layers) to something like this:
       | <input name="layer" type="radio" onclick="show('https://static.ri
       | ghto.com/images/386-package/layer0.jpg')" id="layer1">
       | <label for="layer1">Pins</label>
       | 
       | then it would be possible to click the label name (i.e. Pins, I/O
       | Vcc, etc.) instead of having to click the small radio circles.
       | 
       | It's a small thing, but I think it's a lot more fun/easy/fast to
       | click the different label names rather than the circles. It's
       | truly a small nit - just in case it's an easy fix for you.
       | Cheers!
       | 
       | (just to make sure: you need to add a unique "id" attribute for
       | each "input", and then make a <label> tag for each label
       | referencing that id in the "for")
        
         | kens wrote:
         | Thanks for pointing this out. I should have remembered the
         | label tag. I've updated the page so it should work better now.
        
       | mlhpdx wrote:
       | A bit of a trip down memory lane for me. I performed an analysis
       | of the thermo-mechanical cyclic fatigue in later packages using
       | detailed CAD, FEA and empirical tests. A lot of work went into
       | finding it wasn't a big deal for the most part. Still, I don't
       | recommend that museums power cycle old PCs daily...
        
         | nxobject wrote:
         | Knowing nothing about how survival/durability testing is done
         | in VLSI: how did you do the empirical tests?
         | 
         | For example, I know that thermal samples for the Pentium 5-era
         | Xeon (Jayhawk) were produced, but I'd always wondered Intel
         | went from the dummy to realizing "oh, shit, this is going to be
         | way too hot in the long run."
        
           | mlhpdx wrote:
           | I can't really speak to the thermals other than as an input
           | to my work. I was narrowly focused on the cyclic loading
           | based on the temperature gradients (etc.) I was given.
        
       | devmor wrote:
       | Super cool! This was the CPU in my very first PC (which I got to
       | build myself, under the tutelage of a family friend). I remember
       | that it was cooled by nothing but a tiny stick-on heatsink and a
       | small plastic fan that clipped on top of that.
       | 
       | 8MB of DRAM, a 250MB spinning disk hard drive, 5.25 and 3.5 inch
       | floppy bays, removable bios that I had to sort through a
       | tupperware of chips to find the correct unit, some unnamed AGP
       | video card that I had to slot removable chips into as well and a
       | great big 16" CRT.
       | 
       | I think I had to install a special serial card in an ISA slot to
       | use a mouse too.
        
         | bartread wrote:
         | > some unnamed AGP video card
         | 
         | Do you mean VGA rather than AGP? AGP came much later than the
         | 386 and wouldn't have been supported by its motherboard
         | chipsets.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-08-09 23:00 UTC)