Mixing
Why was the 6809 so expensive?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The 6809 was released in 1978, but looking at the usual source for price quotes for old computer components, Byte magazine, I cannot find any quotes for 1979. December 1980 lists it at $38, compared to its closest competitor, the Z80A, for $14.50.
Transistor counts for the Z80 and 6809 were 8500 and 9000 respectively, a very small difference. It sometimes happens that a new chip will be expensive for the first little while after release because the manufacturer is still debugging yield problems, but this was two full years later. Why was the 6809 still so much more expensive than the Z80?
history z80 market 6809
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The 6809 was released in 1978, but looking at the usual source for price quotes for old computer components, Byte magazine, I cannot find any quotes for 1979. December 1980 lists it at $38, compared to its closest competitor, the Z80A, for $14.50.
Transistor counts for the Z80 and 6809 were 8500 and 9000 respectively, a very small difference. It sometimes happens that a new chip will be expensive for the first little while after release because the manufacturer is still debugging yield problems, but this was two full years later. Why was the 6809 still so much more expensive than the Z80?
history z80 market 6809
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
Related: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/5767/10260
– Dr Sheldon
4 hours ago
Note that putting a lot of transistors into a chip is an accepted, but not the only and maybe not a very good measure for engineering effort that has gone into a CPU - Putting them in the right places is the art. The 6809 had a lot of them in the right places compared to other contemporary CPUs.
– tofro
3 hours ago
1
I have a speculation: the Z80 was much more widely used, there are many more of them, and so the manufacturing cost per chip is lower.
– Wilson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The 6809 was released in 1978, but looking at the usual source for price quotes for old computer components, Byte magazine, I cannot find any quotes for 1979. December 1980 lists it at $38, compared to its closest competitor, the Z80A, for $14.50.
Transistor counts for the Z80 and 6809 were 8500 and 9000 respectively, a very small difference. It sometimes happens that a new chip will be expensive for the first little while after release because the manufacturer is still debugging yield problems, but this was two full years later. Why was the 6809 still so much more expensive than the Z80?
history z80 market 6809
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
The 6809 was released in 1978, but looking at the usual source for price quotes for old computer components, Byte magazine, I cannot find any quotes for 1979. December 1980 lists it at $38, compared to its closest competitor, the Z80A, for $14.50.
Transistor counts for the Z80 and 6809 were 8500 and 9000 respectively, a very small difference. It sometimes happens that a new chip will be expensive for the first little while after release because the manufacturer is still debugging yield problems, but this was two full years later. Why was the 6809 still so much more expensive than the Z80?
history z80 market 6809
history z80 market 6809
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
asked 5 hours ago
rwallace
7,440233103
7,440233103
Related: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/5767/10260
– Dr Sheldon
4 hours ago
Note that putting a lot of transistors into a chip is an accepted, but not the only and maybe not a very good measure for engineering effort that has gone into a CPU - Putting them in the right places is the art. The 6809 had a lot of them in the right places compared to other contemporary CPUs.
– tofro
3 hours ago
1
I have a speculation: the Z80 was much more widely used, there are many more of them, and so the manufacturing cost per chip is lower.
– Wilson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Related: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/5767/10260
– Dr Sheldon
4 hours ago
Note that putting a lot of transistors into a chip is an accepted, but not the only and maybe not a very good measure for engineering effort that has gone into a CPU - Putting them in the right places is the art. The 6809 had a lot of them in the right places compared to other contemporary CPUs.
– tofro
3 hours ago
1
I have a speculation: the Z80 was much more widely used, there are many more of them, and so the manufacturing cost per chip is lower.
– Wilson
3 hours ago
Related: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/5767/10260
– Dr Sheldon
4 hours ago
Related: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/5767/10260
– Dr Sheldon
4 hours ago
Note that putting a lot of transistors into a chip is an accepted, but not the only and maybe not a very good measure for engineering effort that has gone into a CPU - Putting them in the right places is the art. The 6809 had a lot of them in the right places compared to other contemporary CPUs.
– tofro
3 hours ago
Note that putting a lot of transistors into a chip is an accepted, but not the only and maybe not a very good measure for engineering effort that has gone into a CPU - Putting them in the right places is the art. The 6809 had a lot of them in the right places compared to other contemporary CPUs.
– tofro
3 hours ago
1
1
I have a speculation: the Z80 was much more widely used, there are many more of them, and so the manufacturing cost per chip is lower.
– Wilson
3 hours ago
I have a speculation: the Z80 was much more widely used, there are many more of them, and so the manufacturing cost per chip is lower.
– Wilson
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
It was just standard market positioning. The 6800 was still a current product and in use in many systems at the time, so they priced the 6809 as a more powerful alternative to both that and the Z80.
The 6809 was expected to be used in higher end systems that cost more anyway, so Motorola naturally wanted their cut of that.
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The price was defined obviously by marketing team, therefore their decisions are out of reach for the logical engineering mind :)
Probably they were relying on the marketing company (like this one https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/460001968064000/byte_6809_articlesx3.pdf) and thought people would be immediately convinced by cool features and buy 6809 whatever the price was, as there were no perceived alternatives in 8bit cpu market -- at that time.
Previously Motorola had to drop the price for 6800 after the release of 6502.
So I personally think people tend to recur -- and they were either to drop price if anything comparable would emerge or to keep it -- again. To my taste, however cool 6809 was -- it came a bit late, and the only thing that could make it a sound competitor was the appropriate price.
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
It was just standard market positioning. The 6800 was still a current product and in use in many systems at the time, so they priced the 6809 as a more powerful alternative to both that and the Z80.
The 6809 was expected to be used in higher end systems that cost more anyway, so Motorola naturally wanted their cut of that.
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It was just standard market positioning. The 6800 was still a current product and in use in many systems at the time, so they priced the 6809 as a more powerful alternative to both that and the Z80.
The 6809 was expected to be used in higher end systems that cost more anyway, so Motorola naturally wanted their cut of that.
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It was just standard market positioning. The 6800 was still a current product and in use in many systems at the time, so they priced the 6809 as a more powerful alternative to both that and the Z80.
The 6809 was expected to be used in higher end systems that cost more anyway, so Motorola naturally wanted their cut of that.
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
It was just standard market positioning. The 6800 was still a current product and in use in many systems at the time, so they priced the 6809 as a more powerful alternative to both that and the Z80.
The 6809 was expected to be used in higher end systems that cost more anyway, so Motorola naturally wanted their cut of that.
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
answered 2 hours ago
user
1,834211
1,834211
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The price was defined obviously by marketing team, therefore their decisions are out of reach for the logical engineering mind :)
Probably they were relying on the marketing company (like this one https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/460001968064000/byte_6809_articlesx3.pdf) and thought people would be immediately convinced by cool features and buy 6809 whatever the price was, as there were no perceived alternatives in 8bit cpu market -- at that time.
Previously Motorola had to drop the price for 6800 after the release of 6502.
So I personally think people tend to recur -- and they were either to drop price if anything comparable would emerge or to keep it -- again. To my taste, however cool 6809 was -- it came a bit late, and the only thing that could make it a sound competitor was the appropriate price.
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The price was defined obviously by marketing team, therefore their decisions are out of reach for the logical engineering mind :)
Probably they were relying on the marketing company (like this one https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/460001968064000/byte_6809_articlesx3.pdf) and thought people would be immediately convinced by cool features and buy 6809 whatever the price was, as there were no perceived alternatives in 8bit cpu market -- at that time.
Previously Motorola had to drop the price for 6800 after the release of 6502.
So I personally think people tend to recur -- and they were either to drop price if anything comparable would emerge or to keep it -- again. To my taste, however cool 6809 was -- it came a bit late, and the only thing that could make it a sound competitor was the appropriate price.
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The price was defined obviously by marketing team, therefore their decisions are out of reach for the logical engineering mind :)
Probably they were relying on the marketing company (like this one https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/460001968064000/byte_6809_articlesx3.pdf) and thought people would be immediately convinced by cool features and buy 6809 whatever the price was, as there were no perceived alternatives in 8bit cpu market -- at that time.
Previously Motorola had to drop the price for 6800 after the release of 6502.
So I personally think people tend to recur -- and they were either to drop price if anything comparable would emerge or to keep it -- again. To my taste, however cool 6809 was -- it came a bit late, and the only thing that could make it a sound competitor was the appropriate price.
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
The price was defined obviously by marketing team, therefore their decisions are out of reach for the logical engineering mind :)
Probably they were relying on the marketing company (like this one https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/460001968064000/byte_6809_articlesx3.pdf) and thought people would be immediately convinced by cool features and buy 6809 whatever the price was, as there were no perceived alternatives in 8bit cpu market -- at that time.
Previously Motorola had to drop the price for 6800 after the release of 6502.
So I personally think people tend to recur -- and they were either to drop price if anything comparable would emerge or to keep it -- again. To my taste, however cool 6809 was -- it came a bit late, and the only thing that could make it a sound competitor was the appropriate price.
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
answered 2 hours ago
lvd
2,249316
2,249316
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8006%2fwhy-was-the-6809-so-expensive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Related: retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/5767/10260
– Dr Sheldon
4 hours ago
Note that putting a lot of transistors into a chip is an accepted, but not the only and maybe not a very good measure for engineering effort that has gone into a CPU - Putting them in the right places is the art. The 6809 had a lot of them in the right places compared to other contemporary CPUs.
– tofro
3 hours ago
1
I have a speculation: the Z80 was much more widely used, there are many more of them, and so the manufacturing cost per chip is lower.
– Wilson
3 hours ago