Re: BCT vs FCT

Article View: sci.electronics

Article #10648

#10648

From: Michael Podhorodecki
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:40

9 lines
965 bytes

From article <1992Sep25.180311.25165@adobe.com>, by pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai):
> In comparing an 74BCT244 to a 74FCT244A, I see no reason to use a BCT
> device. The FCT has the same drive, uses less power, and is faster.
> Is there any reason to use BCT that I have overlooked?
>
Ground Bounce. FCT designs are very critical and application specific.
-- 
Michael Podhorodecki                                michael@labtam.oz.au
Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd.                          Phone: +61-3-587-1444

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Sep28.024044.26976@labtam.labtam.oz.au>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!labtam!michael

References: <1992Sep25.180311.25165@adobe.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!labtam!michael
From: michael@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Michael Podhorodecki)
Subject: Re: BCT vs FCT
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:40:44 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep28.024044.26976@labtam.labtam.oz.au>
References: <1992Sep25.180311.25165@adobe.com>
Lines: 9

Reply to Parent Message