ATXMEGA marking?

Go To Last Post
18 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

What do the letters U-TW mean in the marking?

Attachment(s): 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

My guess is that the silicon was fabbed in Taiwan.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Can I trust such a chip?

Previously it was ...A1U-AU, and now ...A1U-U-TW.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

But the "other numbers" you see on chips tend to be just batch numbers, date codes, and other internal data used by the manufacturer to track production/stock.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Now all the new chips will be so marked?

Package 100A is now simply U and not AU?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Not really sure of the point you are making. Surely the only important (to the end user) marking on that chip is:

 

That to me says this is an Xmega128A1U. End of story. It does not really need code letters to say it is a QFP - you can see it is a QFP!

 

The only things that might concern me slightly (though they might just be artefacts of the photo?) are that the official part number certainly always used to be ATXEMGA... and I can't quite read the "AT" at the start of that. Also the Atmel logo on that looks very low quality. Maybe it's just because it is printed very small but it looks almost "italic" in that image. Which seems a bit odd.

Last Edited: Wed. Feb 14, 2018 - 01:07 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Nо artefacts. AT is not present.

Attachment(s): 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Are there any markings on the back?

 

Steve

Maverick Embedded Technologies Ltd. Home of wAVR and Maven.

wAVR: WiFi AVR ISP/PDI/uPDI Programmer.

Maven: WiFi ARM Cortex-M Debugger/Programmer

https://www.maverick-embedded.co...

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

The lack of AT prefix (ATmel after all!) is presumably something to do with the transition from Atmel to Microchip but odd that they retained the actual logo.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

In case you missed it, Microchip have taken over Atmel and ALL product marking is subject to change. If you search the Microchip site you can find the PCN (product change notices) that document the changes.

#1 This forum helps those that help themselves

#2 All grounds are not created equal

#3 How have you proved that your chip is running at xxMHz?

#4 "If you think you need floating point to solve the problem then you don't understand the problem. If you really do need floating point then you have a problem you do not understand." - Heater's ex-boss

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

scdoubleu wrote:

Are there any markings on the back?

On the back there is no any text.

 

Last Edited: Sat. Feb 17, 2018 - 10:52 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

agentXMEGA wrote:

scdoubleu wrote:

Are there any markings on the back?

On the back there is no any text.

That would seem to tie in with the new markings described in the docs linked above by gchapman.

 

Steve

Maverick Embedded Technologies Ltd. Home of wAVR and Maven.

wAVR: WiFi AVR ISP/PDI/uPDI Programmer.

Maven: WiFi ARM Cortex-M Debugger/Programmer

https://www.maverick-embedded.co...

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I have designed a custom board that uses the ATMEGA640 16AU. About 500 boards have been built and are successfully operational. In this last build the device that was used is the 16U-TW and it will not work with the existing 12 MHz crystal. When the fuse is programmed to to the external crystal selection that has been used, the crystal will not start oscillating on a number of the boards. Also, the board logic is powered at 3.3VDC and that should allow for operation at 12 MHz.

 

Does anyone know if the 16U is fully compatible with the older 16AU device. And if so, has there been a change that affects the crystal parameters? Does anyone have updated datasheet that reflects the current state of the device? 

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have tried to locate this information on the Microchip site without success. And the region office does not have any FAEs. I will try and contact the Microchip office in Arizona next.

AVR-User

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

gsbusat wrote:

I have designed a custom board that uses the ATMEGA640 16AU...

 

Just to be clear...the working chips are maked "ATmega640-16AU" and the failing chips are marked "ATmega640-16U-TW"???

 

Any chance of a photo?

#1 This forum helps those that help themselves

#2 All grounds are not created equal

#3 How have you proved that your chip is running at xxMHz?

#4 "If you think you need floating point to solve the problem then you don't understand the problem. If you really do need floating point then you have a problem you do not understand." - Heater's ex-boss

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Why is this in a thread about xmega? Surely a mega640 is a mega not an xmega?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Someone pointed me here. Sorry but I guess this is where I am for a little longer.

AVR-User

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

FYI:  ----  I'm having an issue with a Capacitive Touch controller IC.  QT1481 =

 

Same idea as the OP.  TW marking, IC doesn't function the same. Just contacted Microchip