History of microprocessors[edit]

Two concerns: Firstly, only the history of 64-bit microprocessors for personal computers is covered. Secondly, coverage of multicore microprocessors is limited to "mass-market" designs. Is there any reason why the coverage should not be extended to all microprocessors? I am willing to make an effort. Rilak (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to me that "64-bit designs for personal computers" is actually the shortest history section, although it is in some sense the culmination of some earlier threads. And then of course there is History of general purpose CPUs. Certainly there are parts of the article that could use work, but I'm not sure that I understand your particular concern. — Aluvus t/c 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But History of general purpose CPUs does not cover 64-bit microprocessors. It does not seem to present the history organized in n bits. It doesn't cover multicore microprocessors either, it makes a mention of them, but no dates or examples are given. This article could link to 64-bit and Multicore, respectively, where there are more complete histories, but then, what is the point of the selectively covering certain parts of history? Why have a section titled "64-bit designs in personal computers"? All other sections do not have this restriction and 64-bit microprocessors have been around in computers and consumer electronics such as game consoles for some time, for example. Perhaps brief summaries of the important events and a link to each of the subject's articles should replace the present sections? Rilak (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In multicore processors, the First Dual Core x86-64 processor was the AMD Opteron Dual-Core in 2004 then followed, by April 2005, by the Athlon X2 for desktops. These were SCM designs with the Direct Connect architecture, and not MCM interconnected by FSB like the Pentium-D. I think it is needed to do an edit in that part. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgarza (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.amd.com/en-us/who-we-are/corporate-information/history

8 bit vs 32 bit[edit]

There seems to be a bit of conflict between fans of 8-bit chips and fans of 32-bit chips. Honestly, both sides seem biased to me, but I think it makes an encyclopedia article better to describe all the major viewpoints, even when some of them are biased.

Two areas that I think deserve a few more words in this article: energy and noise.

I've been able to add both points of view on energy:

Alas, those other references don't seem to mention noise or the other issues brought up by Saether and Fredriksen. So does pretty much everyone agree that 8-bit processors (when fabbed at the same technology level) produce less noise than 32-bit processors? Or is there a reliable source we can reference that has some other point of view, that we should mention in this article? --DavidCary (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those references were deleted in a later edit. --DavidCary (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal[edit]

I am going to link this here. I made an proposal for a new Project based on microprocessors. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiChips

Bobherry Talk Edits 01:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About this[edit]

I have additional matter about this Nadimpalli bhargav (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microprocessor vs CPU[edit]

The article does a poor job of explaining the relationship between the two terms. As I understand it, a CPU is a broader term includes central processing units that are not all on one chip whereas a microprocessor is a CPU all on one chip. So we need to clarify that a Microprocessor is a type of CPU but not all CPU's are microprocessors. As such, we need to make this article more clearly a sub-article of CPU's. In modern times, almost all CPUs are microprocessors so the terms are, with few exception, used interchangeably these days. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intel, AMD, Motorola et all refer to their bit-slice product systems as microprocessors. Many early Microprocessors 1800/1801 = 1802, 6500/6501 = 6502, etc. are one chip integration of multi chip products. TaylorLeem (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1950's and into the 1960's, the CPU was a box connected to memory in a separate box, and I/O devices somewhere else. Maybe the CPU and memory together is the processor. It is, then, not at all obvious what should count as "processor on a chip" or "CPU on a chip". The early chips required a separate chip to generate the clock, especially when it needed a higher voltage than other inputs. Does that make them not single chip? It seems that there is a lot of wiggle room in the name, and that was used by the companies. It is especially complicated by the early chips meant for embedded systems. That was true at least through the 8080, and yet the 8080 turned out to make a good general purpose machine. Gah4 (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Hyatt's Patent Battles on Microprocessors[edit]

Gilbert Hyatt actually had tons and tons of patent applications pertaining to the microprocessor, and his intellectual property strategy seems to have influenced processor engineering and law alike. According to several sources, a USPTO director wanted to have his blocked or deprioritized. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because his patent applications NEVER documented a working product which is theoretically a patent requirements. Mental masturbation should not be patentable. The result would be granting every perpetual motion machine a patent. TaylorLeem (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RCA CDP1802[edit]

Integration of 4 CD4057 Accumulator/ALU and array of CD40108 triple port Ram and microsequencer. Orthogonal instruction set. TaylorLeem (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from ((IEP assignment)) by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intel 4004/TMS1802NC Dispute[edit]

The beginning of the Intel 4004 (1971) section contains some strong statements such as it is "definitively false" that the Intel 4004 is the first microprocessor in favor of the TMS1802NC. This doesn't seem appropriate for this section and does not immediately cite evidence in favor of the falsity. I added a Disputed inline link here and a Citation Needed tag to these sentences. Aldaron lorem (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the evidence is present in the TMS1802 and TMX 1795 sections.
intel only released the 4004 in '71 november. TI already filled the patent for the microprocessor in '71 august and released TMSC1802 a single chip microprocessor in '71 september. Also, the TMX 1795 has reached working prototype state at 1971 February 24. (https://www.righto.com/2015/05/the-texas-instruments-tmx-1795-first.html) 94.21.161.212 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have come up in the Intel 4004 article. Also, the 4004 is better known in a commercial context. Were the TI chips commercially available? Gah4 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't, but nobody said, that the intel 4004 wasn't the first commercially available microprocessor. It was. Nobody denies it.
But it wasn't the first single chip microprocessor (that was the TMS1802 or the TMX 1795, if we accept working prototypes too and why we would not) and it was definetely not the first microprocessor overall (that was the CADC or the AL1). 178.164.222.20 (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

I think the article should also explicitly mention that microprocessors are also simply called processors, like saying in the lead: "A microprocessor (also called a processor) is a computer processor..." i think i added it to the article but for some reason it's not in the article. i have mostly seen the term microprocessor being used in the 1980s but not now Pancho507 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was needed in the 1970's when big processors were still popular. There are still big processors, though usually made from many microprocessors. Otherwise, it seems to me that processor is just short for microprocessor, in many cases. It can also be the generic word, when one doesn't really need to know or care about the size. It is now not so unusual to generate a processor inside an FPGA, in which case it is called a soft-processor. (And not micro.) Gah4 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Processor (computing) which appears to consider itself a superset of Microprocessor, Central processing unit, Graphics processing unit among others. Do you think this organization should be improved somehow? ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories