Jump to content

Talk:Microprocessor: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Error?: new section
 
(110 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Top|class=c}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Electronics}}
{{WikiProject Computing|hardware=y |hardware-importance=Top|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-11-15|oldid1=10310098}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-11-15|oldid1=10310098}}

{{IEP assignment|project=India Education Project|course=Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Computer Organization and Advanced Microprocessing|ended=|university=Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India|term=2011 Q3}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Microprocessor/Archive %(counter)d
}}


__TOC__
__TOC__
The intro to this page makes no sense to someone without a background. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.163.67.111|71.163.67.111]] ([[User talk:71.163.67.111|talk]]) 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Concern about "GPU"==
I'm a little wary that the article classifies GPUs as microprocessors. I have always seen the term "microprocessor" applied to an IC-based CPU. As I'm sure most readers realize, GPUs are much more akin to DSPs or stream processors than CPUs, despite the unfortunate acronym similarity. The programmability and general design model of GPUs certainly does not qualify it to be called a CPU. So my question is, is it appropriate to call a GPU a microprocessor, given that I've always known the term microprocessor to be related to CPUs? I'm not entirely sure, thoughts? -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 12:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

:Okay, since nobody has ventured to add input to this concern, I'll just remove the offending text. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

::Hi, sorry - I didn't see this topic before I made my edit. Your concern seems to be that "microprocessor" should always mean "CPU", but I don't see any reason for that to be the case - they are not synonyms. Do you have any citations for a definition of "microprocessor" that would exclude GPUs? The fact that some GPUs are now used for non-graphics computation (see [[GPGPU]]) makes a pretty good case for their inclusion. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::There is no formal definition for the term 'microprocessor;' I'd be highly impressed if you could even find the first instance of its usage. I've personally never seen it used to include anything OTHER than CPUs. GPUs are called what they are, DSPs are called DSPs, etc. Just because GPUs perform arithmetic and are being used to a small extent as general purpose DSPs does not in itself qualify them as microprocessors in my mind (you wouldn't call a DSP a microprocessor, would you?).
::::I don't have to call a DSP a microprocessor; all I have to do is show examples of people in research and industry calling it that, which I have done. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 06:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I guess I could turn your question back on you -- do you have any reference that suggests that a microprocessor is anything other than a CPU? It would be enough for me if you could find one or two major hardware vendors that classifies something as a microprocessor that isn't (or doesn't contain) a CPU. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Incidentally, FOLDOC only mentions CPUs in its definition of 'microprocessor.' [http://foldoc.org/?microprocessor 1] It's definition expands a bit from Wikipedia's, presumably to easily include microcontrollers and SoCs. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Fair enough! I would start with a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster: ''"a computer processor contained on an integrated-circuit chip",'' which would include GPUs unless you define "computer" as a CPU only (circular logic) - but then, graphics computations are still computations.
:::::Then I'd cite a few articles and pages:
::::[http://www.atarimagazines.com/v2n11/cinderellastory.html] "[[ANTIC]] (locations 54272-54783) This chip is actually a specialized microprocessor in its own right. It controls the screen display through instructions to C/GTIA."
::::[http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20030701S0042] "...if this still doesn't get them the required performance, go to a specialized microprocessor like a digital signal processor or even a custom microprocessor implemented in an application-specific integrated circuit — an ASIC."
::::[http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/gpu.htm] "A graphics processing unit (GPU) is a microprocessor that has been designed specifically for the processing of 3D graphics."
::::[http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=141119] "A DSP is a specialized microprocessor adept at high-speed arithmetic and real-time data transfer to and from the real world."
::::[http://www.findanyisp.com/glossary/DSP.html] "A DSP is a microprocessor designed to work with analog signals such as video or audio that have been digitally encoded."
::::[http://www.answers.com/topic/microprocessor] "...the microprocessor became most visible as the central processor of the personal computer. Microprocessors also play supporting roles within larger computers as smart controllers for graphics displays, storage devices, and high-speed printers."
:::::On the opposing side:
::::[http://www.semiconductor-technology.com/glossary/microprocessor.html] "The microprocessor is the central processing unit (CPU) fabricated on one or more chips"
::::[http://computer.laborlawtalk.com/microprocessor] "microprocessor: a computer whose entire CPU is contained on one (or a small number of) integrated circuits"
::::[http://web.archive.org/web/20041123085417/http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/jbayko/cpu.html] "A microprocessor generally means a CPU on a single silicon chip, but exceptions have been made (and are documented) when the CPU includes particularly interesting design idea..."
::::What do you think? I think there's evidence that they're not synonymous. If you can imagine a Venn diagram with a "CPU" circle and a "microprocessor" circle, and your definition being the shaded overlapping area. A "microprocessor" seems to be (at the least) a single-chip computer, but it doesn't have to be the CPU even if it has the capability. For instance, look at the [[Sega Saturn]], it used a [[Motorola 68000]] for the sound controller. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::First, M-W is hardly a definitive source for computer related information. In any case, we are talking specifically about the term 'microprocessor,' not 'processor.' Since, as I stated earlier, there is no formal definition of the term, we must go by what is common usage in the industry. DSPs and stream processors are both 'processors' that are never called 'microprocessors' (unless in some SoC form).
::::::'Processor' is simply an abbreviation of 'microprocessor', at least in systems that use ICs. In older systems, it's short for 'processing unit'. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Now, point by point: 1. Quick searching indicates that Atari never referred to ANTIC as a GPU; indeed most sources refer to it as a microprocessor by the merit that it could execute stored programs (something that no GPU can do by itself).
::::::ANTIC is an example of a microprocessor which is not used as the CPU of a system. I think it supports my statement below that "GPUs contain CPUs", because it's a custom controller that meets the criteria for a microprocessor - it was never intended for use as a CPU. As far as I know, though, you are right that they never called it a GPU (that term came much later). But it ''is'' a graphics coprocessor, essentially the same thing. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::2. Why are you confusing ASICs with GPUs? What does that have to do with the question at hand? Do you know what this term actually refers to or are you just giving me googled links? 3. I've never heard of WAVE Report, and from what I can tell they aren't a manufacturer nor considered an authority in the field of digital microelectronics. 4. GPS World... That's a source for EE information? You'd trust one line of research done by someone not knowledgable in the field? 5. *sigh* See my complaints with #3 and #4. Additionally, I fail to see any point you're making as regards to the Sega Saturn. The M68k is undoubtedly a microprocessor and a CPU; it was simply used to control sound functions in that capacity. Perhaps some of this confusion lies in failing to separate design from functional capacity.

::::::I'm starting to see where the confusion lies - and perhaps this is the solution to the quandary. A '''microprocessor''' is a physical unit, a chip, a component. A '''CPU''' is an abstration, defined by function instead of form. The 68k (actually a CMOS 68EC000 in the Saturn, I see) is a specific implementation of a CPU, though it can serve other functions. A PowerPC or Pentium, while being '''microprocessors,''' are much more - they contain functions traditionally separate from the CPU, such as floating-point units, MMUs, vector units. We could rewrite the intro to include the distinction between the physical chip (microprocessor) and the function it serves (CPU, FPU, DSP, GPU etc.). [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 03:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Yes you're right, but there's no confusion here. My issue is that you never will see someone refer to a FPU as a microprocessor
::::::::"A coprocessor is a second microprocessor that has been specially designed to perform a limited number of functions very quickly" [http://faculty.lacitycollege.edu/Colantrs/c30new/notes/c308088.html] Need more? [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::you'd rarely see a DSP called a microprocessor outside SoC applications, and to the best of my knowledge you'd never see a GPU referred to as a microprocessor by those in the industry. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Nvidia, ''The GeForce 6 SeriesGPU Architecture'' "Figure 30-1.The GeForce 6800 Microprocessor" [http://download.nvidia.com/developer/GPU_Gems_2/GPU_Gems2_ch30.pdf] Need more? [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Then perhaps a distinction can be made between general-purpose and special-purpose microprocessors? (Incidentally, if there is no formal definition, why are you asking me to cite one? just curious :) [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Please don't give googled links to support a point based on predisposition. I'm looking for a respectable reference work; some research paper published by digital VLSI designers, or perhaps a whitepaper by a manufacturer. You can't just use Google to support a point of view (for example, Google would probably provide sufficient evidence for supporting the notion that CPUs are all microelectronic and only exist in the x86 form). Don't get me wrong now, I'm not trying to be caustic or jump all over you, but providing a list of links from unusable reference sources doesn't assist the discussion. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::Yes, these are Googled links which are not intended as reference, but simply evidence that ''other people'' often use the term "microprocessor" to mean something other than a CPU, specifically because you said "I have always seen the term 'microprocessor' applied to an IC-based CPU." You are using your own experience as (dare I say) original research, and since you said that "there is no formal definition" these viewpoints are just as valid as yours. If you want to search for reputable references to back your own definition, you're certainly welcome to do so. That said, would you agree that in a general article it's better to be ''more'' inclusive unless there's reason to do otherwise? [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 03:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I phrased it like that because one can never be 100% sure that their position is correct, and I'd never want to come across that way. I find it unlikely that I could find any formal paper that explicitly spells out what a microprocessor is, because they assume the reader already has an idea of their intentions in usage. The point is that when manufacturers and researchers refer to microprocessors, I have never seen a case where they did not mean CPU. If you'd like me to dig up long winded papers that support this in a general fashion I can, but that hardly proves my point. It's easier for me to simply ask you to find a citable source that uses the term to mean something other than a CPU. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::I'll look for one, but since "there is no formal definition" that gives us a lot of leeway in the article's scope. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Here's something else to ponder (using google :). If you search for the terms GPU and microprocessor on major GPU designers' sites (e.g. ATI, NVidia, Matrox), initial inspection indicates that they themselves never refer to their products as microprocessors. In the case of difficult to define product terms, I think the tendencies of vendors is the best standard to go by. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::Acutally, I did find a "FORM 40-F" for ATI which explicitly states "A GPU is a microprocessor specifically designed for processing 3D graphics data." I didn't include it because it's a PDF, but here is a <nowiki> http://tinyurl.com/aax27 TinyURL</nowiki> to the cached HTML version. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 03:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Okay, now there's something that we can actually discuss. I think that might be a starting point, but I'm hesitant to consider it justification here because it's a legal document. While I'm not so hard-headed as to reject it on those grounds alone, I'd feel a lot better if we could find something written by researchers or designers (e.g. technical whitepapers) that uses this definition. I'll be looking for such a source myself... Right now I'm leaning towards adding text that points out that some people consider microelectronic GPUs, DSPs, etc to be 'microprocessors,' but in general the term is used to refer to CPUs and SoCs. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Well, they ''are'' microprocessors, if you take the word in a broad sense to mean "a chip that processes digital data", but as I pointed out, a CPU is really only part of a modern microprocessor, and such a chip doesn't have to be used as the CPU in a given system, so when you say "the term is used to refer to CPUs and SoCs", that is true but not the whole picture technically. Perhaps we can include a section for DSPs, GPUs, etc. describing how they were developed as specialized refinements of general-purpose microprocessors. The technology in silicon is basically the same, it's the ''function'' which differs. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:Well that's still the crux of our disagreement. I do not take microprocessor to be such a broad definition because it's very uncommon in my experience to see any researcher, engineer, or designer refer to anything that doesn't contain a CPU as a microprocessor... Indeed, so far it seems that the people that generally refer to GPUs as microprocessors are either lay men or something else far removed from a computer engineer. Ehh... I'll do a quick survey of some of the newsgroups and technical forums I frequent. I'll also try to see if I can find the first usage of the term anywhere. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::I understand, and I think the point is not to determine "who's right", but instead to enlighten the reader with accurate information. The usage of 'CPU' has changed somewhat - originally the microprocessor was a way to implement a CPU on one chip; now the CPU has become one part of a microprocessor chip. In a very real sense, DSPs and GPUs ''do'' contain CPUs - they are just dedicated to a specialized purpose. But when someone refers to ''the'' microprocessor of a system, they are always referring to the general-purpose CPU and not the microcontrollers, FPUs, GPUs etc. in the system, so you are right about that usage. The article should also contain some sense of the broader meaning (microprocessors as a class of ICs). [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 15:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:::"In a very real sense, DSPs and GPUs ''do'' contain CPUs - they are just dedicated to a specialized purpose." By what definition of CPU? Certainly not a common one... Most people these days define a CPU as a turing complete stored program machine. Most DSPs and GPUs fail one or both these requirements (do you have any notable counterexamples?).
::::I think I spoke too soon on that one, in light of my earlier comment about 'CPU' being defined by its function, not its implementation. What I really mean is that DSPs and GPUs have logic cores similar to general-purpose microprocessors, and process data in a specialized way - i.e. the single-chip CPU had to be developed before programmable DSPs and GPUs could be made. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 06:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Again, I simply have to disagree that the term microprocessor is commonly used to refer to ICs that don't function as CPUs. All publications I've ever read by the IEEE and computer architecture researchers seem to agree. The more general term "microchip" could certainly mean a DSP or GPU, but I still see no reason to think of a microprocessor as anything BUT a CPU, and the engineers I've talked to agree. I looked through the library's archive of old IEEE publications, and discovered that the very first issue of IEEE Micro (February 1981), the IEEE's bimonthly for microprocessor and microcomputer development, contains an article by M. Hoff and R. Noyce entitled "A History of Microprocessor Development at Intel." In it, Noyce states that the term "microprocessor" emerged at Intel in 1972 (not too long after the 4004 was released) and of course was used to refer to CPUs implemented as small multi-IC packages. So certainly the term originally was intended to mean CPU, and as of yet I have seen no sources from the IEEE or component designers that suggest that the meaning has changed since then.
::::1981? 1972? You're going to have to do better than that. Please find an IEEE article or paper that definitively says that microprocessors are CPUs and only CPUs. Better yet, try to find something on a DSP or GPU chip and see how it is described. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Pardon? You don't consider the first usage of the term to be relevant? That's the hardest evidence supporting either position in this entire conversation thus far.
::::::Actually it isn't, since the meaning has changed over time to include specialized processor chips. The articles you cite were written at a time when putting a whole CPU (without extras like FPU, MMU, cache) on a single chip was considered quite a feat in itself. There were no single-chip DSPs at that time, and even the term FPU was less common than "math coprocessor," a name for a ''microchip'' which is a kind of ''processor.'' The term "microprocessor" is just a combination of those two terms anyway. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Again, you will not find any reference that says in explicit terms that "a microprocessor is and only is a CPU" because papers that use the term just assume that the reader knows what the author is talking about. I have certainly read plenty of technical papers involving both DSPs and CPUs and, as I've said several times, have never seen them referred to as microprocessors
:::::: Yes, I know that - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So far all you have offered is "I've never seen it and nobody I know uses it that way." Not good enough, because I ''have'' seen it used that way. The links I provided are just some quick examples of the common usage. Unless you can find a formal definition, then the article should cover all bases. You can easily find lots more examples, but it's up to you to dig deeper. You'll have to convince yourself, I can't do it for you. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
::::: Just citing one paper wouldn't be sufficient evidence to invalidate your position, but if that's all you want, I can certainly provide a couple. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::: Please do - that's all I ask, is that you support your position. Also, please make a note whether these papers are referring to ''a'' microprocessor, or ''the'' microprocessor (CPU) of a single-processor system. I would find that distinction interesting and relevant. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Additionally, I don't think we have the right to take liberties with a fairly well established term just because it seems like its usage could be expanded to other devices. If no industry publication or manufacturer seems to commonly use 'microprocessor' to refer to non-CPU devices, then I don't see why this article should. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::::How "well-established" the term is is what we're debating, so you're begging the question by calling your definition the "well-established" one. I'm not saying it ''seems'' like its usage could be expanded, I'm arguing that it ''has'' been expanded. If you want some examples from manufacturers, here are a few (yes, they're Googled - our libraries don't open until tomorrow, sorry) [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 04:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
::::* '''Texas Instruments''' [http://focus.ti.com/dsp/docs/dspsupportt.tsp?sectionId=4&tabId=437&familyId=44] "A digital signal processor (DSP) is a type of microprocessor - one that is incredibly fast and powerful."
::::* '''Intel''' [http://www.intel.com/network/csp/solutions/ipt/ovrvu/4069web.htm] "Digital Signal Processor (DSP) - A specialized digital microprocessor that performs calculations on digitized signals that were originally analog, and then forwards the results."
::::* '''Intel''' [http://resource.intel.com/telecom/support/releases/dos/voicebrick/vfg/VFG-176.htm] "DSP: 1. Digital signal processor. A specialized microprocessor designed to perform speedy and complex operations with digital signals."
::::* '''IBM''' [http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/264/ibmrd2604D.pdf] ''A Microprocessor for Signal Processing, the RSP:'' "The Real-Time Signal Processor (RSP) is a microprocessor architecture that was created to exploit these characteristics in order to provide an expeditious and economical way to implement signal processing applications."

Halfway through making a list of papers from IEEE journals to demonstrate the term's usage, I decided that all this rhetoric is really silly over a minor terminology disagreement. I went ahead and wrote a section describing the usage of "microprocessor" to mean something other than a CPU; feel free to add to it or revise it as you see fit. I still hold that DSPs and GPUs are not in themselves microprocessors, but I doubt many people would have such issues with using the term thus. I do feel strongly, however, that when no further clarification is given, the term "microprocessor" can safely be assumed to refer to a CPU. The section I wrote reflects that point. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

:Oh, and just so you don't think I've been blowing smoke about this whole point:

:#{{Citation|author=van de Waerdt, J. et al.|title=The TM3270 Media-Processor|publisher=38th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture|year=2005|url=http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1099547.1100532}} - Paper describing the architecture of the TM3270 media processor. It's somewhat similar to a DSP/GPU, but is actually much closer architecturally to a CPU than GPUs are. The article never refers to the TM3270 as a CPU or a microprocessor, but as a "media processor" (actually, I think a very apt term for GPUs and CPUs).
:::That is interesting. The TM3270 looks like a general-purpose CPU with custom media extensions. This press release [http://www.nxp.com/news/content/file_1199.html] refers to it as a CPU, but not as a microprocessor. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 01:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:#{{Citation|author=Goodnight, N., Wang, R. & Humphreys, G.|title=Computation on programmable graphics hardware|publisher=IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications|year=2005|url=http://www.computer.org/portal/site/cga/index.jsp}} - Paper specifically addressing general purpose programming on the latest generation of programmable GPUs (this was only published in October of this year). It refers to GPUs as "stream processors," never microprocessors. It even makes a very clear distinction between GPUs and CPUs (as, IMO, it should).
:#{{Citation|author=Geer, D.|title=Taking the Graphics Processor beyond Graphics|publisher=IEEE Computer|year=2005|url=http://www.computer.org/portal/site/ieeecs/index.jsp}} - Another paper talking in some detail about general purpose computation on GPUs. Always uses the terms "graphics coprocessor" or simply "graphics processor," never microprocessor.

:I just found these resources in a few minutes of digging through late IEEE journals; and there are several more I haven't cited that talk extensively about GPU microarchitecture and always use terms like "graphics processor." True, omission is never sufficient to prove the point, but it does show (in a small way) that the trend by professionals in the field of digital microarchitecture is to refer to GPUs as what they are, and not as microprocessors. I do believe that this latter term is used much more commonly by lay men or those unexperienced in the field that don't already make the mental association of microprocessors with CPUs and simply decide that the term COULD apply to other things. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps. I didn't think you were "blowing smoke," just that you were only seeing part of the picture. I hope I've made fair case that such usage is more common in the industry than you have seen before. If you dig a little deeper, you'll find plenty of examples. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 06:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Umm... You know you're really just beating this thing to death now; I agreed several edits back that it would be okay to mention GPUs and CPUs in the article, and I added a section addressing these myself. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 19:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Okay, I'll give it a rest! :) Having just done a bit of research, and would like to give future editors the benefit of that. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 19:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


: I would like to add that prior to 1972 there were no formal definitions of microprocessor or microcomputer. The general term used was LSI (even for a processing unit). In 1972, Hank Smith, then Intel Marketing Manager gave this definition at a speech for the IEEE 1973 WESCON Professional Conference. He said "A CPU uses P-channel MOS and is contained in 1, 2, 3 or 4 LSI standard dual-in-line packages from 16 - 42 pins per package". This was as close as he could come to a definition and it was based on the current technology used by Intel. Of course, later technology and definitions changed. I think it is very important to put some attention on the phrase "Single Chip Microprocessor" as was called the Intel 4004 and 8008. It should be known that it took about 52 outside chips to make the 4004 work and about half that many to make the 8008 work. The F-14 MP944 chip set had no outside devices for the processor. In support of the technology in 1968 I offer this paper [http://www.microcomputerhistory.com/f14paper.htm "LSI Technology State of the Art in 1968"]. [[Ray Holt]] 01:25, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

=== References ===
Here are some reference points for inclusion of a "specialized microprocessor" subsection. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 05:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
==== Corroboration within Wikipedia, for consistency: ====
:[[NPU]] "Network Processing Unit or NPU is a CPU whose instructions are specialized to handle networking-related functions."
:[[Microcontroller]] "A microcontroller is a computer-on-a-chip used to control electronic devices. It is a type of microprocessor emphasizing self-sufficiency and cost-effectiveness, in contrast to a general-purpose microprocessor, the kind used in a PC."
:[[Graphics processing unit]] (old version) "A Graphics Processing Unit or GPU (also occasionally called Visual Processing Unit or VPU) is the microprocessor of a graphics card (or graphics accelerator) for a personal computer or game console"
:[[Digital signal processor]] "A digital signal processor (DSP) is a specialized microprocessor designed specifically for digital signal processing, generally in real-time."
==== Books ====
* From '''The Winn L. Rosch Hardware Bible, Third Edition''':
:"At heart, a [numeric] coprocessor ''is'' a microprocessor but unlike a general purpose microprocessor it is dedicated to its specific function as a special purpose device." (p. 151)
:"Graphic coprocessors are full-fledged microprocessors that are designed primarily for carrying out graphic operations." (p. 622)
:"A DSP need be nothing more than a microprocessor optimized for processing audio signals." (p. 789)
* From "IA-32 Processor Architecture," Section 2.4.2 Video Output (p. 60) [http://www.nuvisionmiami.com/books/asm/sampleChapters/chapt_02.pdf]
:"The video controller is itself a special-purpose microprocessor, relieving the primary CPU of the job of controlling video hardware.
* From '''Signal Processing Handbook,''' C.H. Chen, Ed., 1988:
:"Advances in IC technology have made possible microprocessors of ever-increasing complexity whose architectures are tailored to DSP algorithms." (p. 193)
:"This section will discuss the design of general-purpose digital signal processors. We will restrict our attention to microprocessors and use the term microprocessor and microcomputer interchangeably." (p. 197)
* From '''Digital Signal Processing Implementations Using DSP Microprocessors, with Examples from TMS320C54xx,''' Avtar Singh & S. Srinivasan, 2004:
:"A programmable digital signal processor is a microprocessor whose architecture is optimized to process sampled data at high rates." (p. 3)
* From '''The Microprocessor: A Biography,''' Michael S. Malone, 1995:
:"...we have basically restricted ourselves to the characteristics of microprocessors used in the central processing units of computers ... there are other kinds of microprocessors as well, most notably microcontrollers ... beyond the features they share with their central processing counterparts, also add another important function: digital signal processing." (p. 120)

==== Academic ====
* Real-Time Computing For Human Computer Interfacing", Princeton University [http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/learning/tutorials/RealTime/RTNotes.html]
:"A Digital Signal Processing chip (DSP) is a microprocessor designed specifically to implement Digital Signal Processing (DSP) algorithms."
==== Industry ====
*'''Electronic Engineering Times''' [http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2005JUL/B/2005JUL18_ACC_OPT_TA.pdf]
:''Mapping computational concepts to GPUs,'' Mark Harris, Nvidia Corp.
:"The computational speed on microprocessors is increasing faster than communication speed, especially on parallel processors such as GPUs."
*'''NXP Semiconductor''' [http://www.nxp.com/news/content/file_616.html]
:"The TriMedia processor, developed by Philips, is a special-purpose microprocessor for the real-time processing of audio, video, graphics and communications data streams."
*'''Microsoft''' [http://www.microsoft.com/speech/techinfo/glossary/default.mspx] "graphics coprocessor, n. - A specialized microprocessor, included in some video adapters, that can generate graphical images such as lines and filled areas in response to instructions from the CPU, freeing the CPU for other work."
*'''Bluetooth Designer''' resource for engineers [http://www.btdesigner.com/atoe.htm] "Digital Signal Processor: a microprocessor dedicated to real-time signal processing."
*'''Apple''' IIgs Tech Note #11 [http://web.pdx.edu/~heiss/technotes/iigs/tn.iigs.011.html] "The Ensoniq DOC in the Apple IIGS is actually a microprocessor dedicated to producing sound."

==Redundance between articles==

there's a similar list on [[Central processing unit]]. Do these need merging, or is one the parent article of the other? -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 16:57 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

==Abbreviation: µP==

Is a microprocessor actually abbreviated &mu;P? It certainly isn't an abbreviation in common usage, so if this is some specific jargon it should be labeled as such. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 04:51, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

:I think it's an old habit, from the early days when most of the people using &mu;Ps (see, it just slipped out :-) ), were EEs, and used to saying &mu;F for capacitors and the like. I see it in my old copies of ''Byte'' for instance (one of them also mentioned a North Star &mu;disc system, heh-heh). uP was a later concession to the limitations of ASCII. This all is worth noting, but as an older and informal usage, doesn't really need to be at the top. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 05:12, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

::Also, µP and µC ([[microcontroller]]) are often used when quickly drawing [[embedded system]] concept sketches on a black/whiteboard or for that matter, on the proverbial napkin, so I felt that the abbreviation(s) should be very visibly included in the relevant articles (and made into associated #redirects). The general case, as Stan touches upon, is that µ and other Greek letters are much used in science/engineering environments to save space/time in written material. --[[User:Wernher|Wernher]] 23:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

==Leonardo's computer==

Regarding the claim: ''There have even been designs for simple computing machines based on mechanical parts such as gears, shafts, levers, Tinkertoys, etc. Leonardo DaVinci made one such design, although none were possible to construct using the manufacturing techniques of the time.'' ... Does anyone know if the [[Leonardo DaVinci]] mechanical 'computer' or 'processor' claim is true? It's not mentioned in the Leonardo article, unless [[Leonardo's robot]] is considered a computing device. Reading up on the 'robot' does not sell me on the 'computing' possibility, though it is obviously an impressive contraption for the time. -- [[User:Ds13|Ds13]] 03:31, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Yes, mechanical computers have been designed and built.
I suspect the original writer is thinking about the [[difference engine]] and [[analytical engine]] designed by [[Charles Babbage]].
--[[Special:Contributions/68.0.124.33|68.0.124.33]] ([[User talk:68.0.124.33|talk]]) 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

== No Intel? ==

Even though they dominate the desktop computers, there is almost no mention of the x86 family of processors at all in the history section after i386?

MIPS is not only used in embedded systems "like Cisco routers". The PlayStation game consolesare perhaps more well-known?

:Remember Intel is mentioned quite a lot in the beginning. After that AMD is mostly mentioned because it gained a lead over Intel.
:To this day AMD is still dominating Intel and if your doing a paragraph on modern microprocessors you should do it on the best,
:AMD.

::Yeah, sure. -- [[User:Matt Britt|mattb]] <code>@ 2007-04-07T03:00Z</code>

I find it odd that the notable 32-bit section says the following: "The most famous of the 32-bit designs is the MC68000, introduced in 1979." The question here is, if the word famous is being used in the normal fashion, shouldn't the MOST famous 32-bit be a member of the x86 family? Regardless of how many applications there were of the 68k series, fame is a measure of popular knowledge. I'm not saying that the x86 family needs a boost in the article so much as that a word other than famous should be used to describe why the 68k series is more SIGNIFICANT than the x86, which I would argue it is. [[User:Jo7hs2|Jo7hs2]] 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

==Contradiction: single versus multiple chips==

The initial definition says a microprocessor is implemented on a single chip, which I have always understood to be an essential feature. However, further down the page there is mention of multi-chip 16-bit "microprocessors", which by this definition cannot exist. --Anonymous

:You might have a valid point there, and I've always thought so myself. On the other side, cf. the definition at [http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=microprocessor&action=Search FOLDOC] :

::''microprocessor <architecture> (Or "micro") A computer whose entire CPU is contained on one (or a small number of) integrated circuits.''

:Thus, many two or three-chip CPUs qualify as a µP, such as the [[RCA 1802|RCA CDP1801]] and [[Intel iAPX 432]] (which, contrary to my general assumpton, I have always thought to be proper µPs). I think the essential part of the definition is the clause "or a small number of", which precludes CPUs made out of piles of TTL chips, but includes CPUs consisting of, say, 1--4 [[Integrated circuit#LSI|LSI]] chips. --[[User:Wernher|Wernher]] 03:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::I think a lot of discussion about computing terminology can be resolved by looking in to the origins of the words. (Luckily this is easy with computer jargon which hasn't been around as long as other language) I don't have evidence to back this up, but I suspect that the term Microprocessor was originally marketing speak for the processors in the computers that came after mini computers, and therefore there isn't actually a rigorous technical definition.

== Move History of Operating System support for 64 bit microchips ==

Is there any support for moving the section ''History of Operating System support for 64 bit microchips'' somewhere else, like maybe Operating Systems? It doesn't seem to serve much purpose here (other than a thinly veiled ''Linux good M$ bad'' dig)

== Regarding the merging of the two articles ==

re: '''Suggestion to merge [[CPU]] and [[Microprocessor]]'''

I've done some preliminary work on this [[User:Splintax/CPU_merger|user subpage]] of mine. Work is still undergoing though and it's far from complete.

Anyone care to load it up, tell me what you think, maybe make a few changes to it? Leave any comments on my [[User_talk:Splintax|user talk]]. Thanks.

Also, we'll need to decide if we do go ahead with the merger which page to keep and which to change to a #redirect..

[[User:Splintax|splintax]] 14:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
:I personally oppose merging CPU with microprocessor. CPUs existed before ICs. [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 16:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]]. Not only did CPUs exist before ICs, but to this day there are still some CPUs that are not microprocessors, though they are usually only found in rather specialized applications. Furthermore, it is now common for a microprocessor to contain more than just a CPU, e.g., memory controllers, simple peripherals. --[[User:Brouhaha|Brouhaha]] 01:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
::Okay then, I've abandoned the project. I didn't think it was all that great an idea myself but there seemed to be a fair bit of support for it around here. Perhaps the warning should be removeD?

:::In the spirit of "less talk, more work" I have taken upon myself the ambitious task of making the [[Central processing unit|CPU]] article not suck. I hope that when I'm done you will see no need to merge the two articles. I believe that you will also be able to condense this article a bit. I'm not finished yet, but I've made some definite progress. I still need to write the largest section regarding CPU implementation (both historically and modern considerations, which will be brief since we have a pretty decent [[CPU design]] article). I encourage you all to look over my edits and offer any advice/help that you can. I'm also currently hunting down some good images to use in the article (I've located some, but I need the authors' consent to upload them). -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Some parts of this article are also similar to [[integrated circuit]].

== NPOV ==

"As with many advances in technology, the microprocessor was an idea whose time had come." This isn't the right style of writing, and it isn't neutral. I haven't read much of the article, so there may be more. Also, a grammar error, right after the explanation of Moore's Law. I would normally do it, but... not now. Too tired, I'd mess it up.[[User:Twilight Realm|Twilight Realm]] 01:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

== Difference from IC ==

This article, along with the articles for integrated circuit, CPU, etc, don't make it clear what's different about them. How exactly is a microprocessor different than an IC other than "microprocessors are very advanced integrated circuits"? [[User:Twilight Realm|Twilight Realm]] 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:Um.. Well you just said the difference... One is a specific and notable type of the other. Microprocessors ARE, in general, advanced and complex integrated circuits whose purpose is that of a CPU. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 00:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Are there any criteria defining microchips? Or is it just an objective term? The IC article says "For the first time it became possible to fabricate a CPU or even an entire microprocessor on a single integrated circuit." To me at least, that sounds like there's a specific level an IC must pass to be considered a microprocessor, or that there's a difference, that a microprocessor contains some components that an IC doesn't necessarily have to have. Clarification would be appreciated, even though it's not in this article. [[User:Twilight Realm|Twilight Realm]] 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:A microchip is really just an informal term for an integrated circuit, they are the same thing. "aka microchip", as it says in the article. I agree about the sentence quoted not being correct, I have changed it slightly. [[User:Alf Boggis|Alf Boggis]] [[User_talk:Alf_Boggis|(talk)]] 09:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

::Be careful not to confuse microchips and microprocessors. Microprocessor almost ALWAYS means a CPU (Von Neumann-like) that is fabricated on one or more ICs. "Microchip" is usually just another term for IC. Something like a DSP/DAC could be fabricated on a microchip (or IC), but it would not likely be considered a microprocessor. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 22:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

== Interesting ==

How about [http://techrepublic.com.com/2300-10877-5887476.html this]
The [http://techrepublic.com.com/2100-10877_11-5893374.html article].
[[User:134.250.72.176|134.250.72.176]]

== Apologies for no summery ==

Sorry that I didn't use an edit summery on my last edit, but I clicked on save page instead of minor edit. It was just reverting vandalism though. --[[User:Apyule|Apyule]] 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

== Removed "History of 64-bit support" section ==

This section is totally misplaced here. Not only does it have NOTHING to do with microprocessors, but it was TOTALLY wrong. Linux support for 64 bit microprocessors dates back to the Alpha and MIPS ports (LONG before x86-64). Windows support also dates back to NT 3's Alpha and MIPS R4xxx ports. Likewise, Mac OSX's blood relatives Darwin, Mach, and L4 all ran on 64-bit microprocessors before OSX was compiled for PowerPC64.

The section was REALLY 'history of OS support for x86-64,' which is already included in the [[AMD64]] article (in much more complete form). -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

== Alpha and Itanium ''really'' more popular than SPARCv9 and 64-bit Power/PowerPC? ==

"In 64-bit computing, the DEC(-Intel) ALPHA, the AMD 64, and the HP-Intel Itanium are the most popular designs as of late 2004." Was that really true? And, if so, is it still true? Or is "popular" defined as something other than "most common"? I suspect there might be more 64-bit SPARC machines and 64-bit POWER/PowerPC machines (especially if you include AS/400 and iSeries PowerAS) than Alpha machines, much less Itanium machines. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] 19:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, it's a spurious claim for sure. It would be far better to say that they are all popular designs (ALPHA isn't all-caps either...) -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey didn't you forget the Intel Pentium D (Dual Core) processors. I feel the performance of Intel is way better than the DEC, AMD, others. 01/27/2005 posted by - swoosh

:OK, so make it

::In 64-bit computing, [[DEC Alpha]], [[AMD64]]/[[EM64T]], [[MIPS architecture|MIPS]], [[SPARC]], [[PowerPC]]/[[IBM POWER]], and [[HP]]-[[Intel]] [[Itanium]] are all popular designs.

:to include both AMD and Intel variations of that instruction set architecture. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there should be more links to processor architecture from this page. Von neuman, Harvard, DIB, etc. - swoosh

== First commercial RISC architecture ==

I'm not sure, if MIPS was really the first here. [[ARM architecture|ARM]] was made in (working!) silicon (ARM1) on [[April 26]][[1985]], first products were sold 1986 (exact date missing, the "ARM Development System", a second processor card for the [[BBC Micro ]]), first workstations released June 1987 ([[Acorn Archimedes]]).
But I don't know, when the first working MIPS silcon was made (I find 1985-1987 on the web, mips.com says nothing), what the first MIPS based products were, and when they were released. Some of the early products I know are the [[DECstation]] 2100 (1989), [[SGI Indigo]] (1990), [[MIPS Magnum]] 3000 (1990). Another candidate would be [[IBM ROMP]], the first workstation was released 1986 (exact date missing), other products before that unlikely. - [[User:Alureiter|Alureiter]] 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

== Moore's Law ==
WRT the reverting to #transistors doubling every 18 months: I initially thought that this was wrong, but on checking the article, even though 18 months is oft quoted, 24 seems to fit the data much better. Also, from [[Moore's law]]:

:"In 1975, Moore projected a doubling only every two years. He is adamant that he himself never said "every 18 months", but that is how it has been quoted. The SEMATECH roadmap follows a 24 month cycle."

I think the best thing may be to change the 18 at the top of the Moore's Law article to 24, and re-revert the change here. Comments? --[[User:Mike Van Emmerik|Mike Van Emmerik]] 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think that's a problem, as long as it is consistent with the other article. The "law" itself is not very rigid, as the article on it makes clear - the time period and the meaning of "complexity" can vary depending on which trends you look at. It might be enough to simply make note in this article that the complexity of integrated circuits and number of transistors on microprocessors have increased over time (while cost has stayed relatively flat) and simply link to the "Moore's Law" article. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

:Whatever the actual statistics are, the forumlation of Moore's Law is that the number of transistors doubles every 18 months. So readers of this article are presented with a definition of the law that's directly contradicted by the article on Moore's Law. We should get this straight. --[[User:Mr random|Mr random]] 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::You should have corrected the [[Moore's Law]] article instead - Moore said 2 years, not 18 months. The first line of that article is factually incorrect. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I have correct both the Moore's Law entry and this one. The fact that the intro paragraph of the Moore's Law article contradicted the '''direct quotation''' of Moore that immediately followed, ''and'' referenced the interview it came from, ''and'' went against information that was established on the Talk page, yet still managed to endure for over a month is discouraging. — [[User:Aluvus|<font style="background: #3371A3" COLOR="#FFFFFF">Aluvus</font>]] [[User talk:Aluvus|<sup><font color="DarkGreen">t</font></sup>]]/[[Special:contributions/Aluvus|<small><font color="3399FF">c</font></small>]] 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Missing and bloated sections. ==

The first paragraph tells me what a microprocessor is made of but doesn't tell me what it does. I would like to see a succinct sentence about what a microprocessor actual does (execute instructions, for example), and then perhaps explain it a bit more in section farther down in the article.

Then at the end of the article there are three screens full of lists of various stuff. On Wikipedia it's easy to allow lists to get out of control and lose sight of what makes a thorough, balanced article. And complete doesn't mean we have to make a list of every possible internal and external link that might be somehow related!

So, tell me what the thing does and judiciously select a very few closely related links that might also be helpful. [[User:JonHarder|JonHarder]] 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:Well this again brings up the issue I raised months back (see the top of this talk page). Is a microprocessor necessarily a CPU? Can microprocessors be non-programmable? If that's the case, does a microprocessor have to execute "instructions" in the CPU sense? It's a big mess, just like the state of this article. Big issues about simple terminology have to be resolved before this article can see the sweeping changes it needs. -- [[User:Uberpenguin|uberpenguin]] <code>@ 2006-07-16&nbsp;23:01Z</code>

::I don't think it's too bad. The intro describes the function of the part (a microprocessor is a part), and links to the [[CPU]] article. If the readers read the CPU article as well, they'll have a better idea of what a microprocessor does. However, it does feel like there's a paragraph missing there - something that explains how microprocessors "made possible the advent of the microcomputer," a role previously filled by several parts. We should describe how they were able to do that. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 05:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

==First or seccond?==
From text: <br>
''The world's first single-chip 32-bit microprocessor was the AT&T Bell Labs BELLMAC-32A, with first samples in 1980, and general production in 1982(...)''<br>
but a few lines later:<br>
''The most famous of the 32-bit designs is the MC68000, introduced in 1979.''<br>
so, which one is right? it was the bellmac-3a or the mc68k?<br>
----
[[User:Alejandro M.|Alejandro Matos]] 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Depends whether you're measuring word size or address bus lines. The 68000 had a 32-bit word size but a 16-bit address bus, and it wasn't until 1984 that the 68020 was introduced with a 32-bit address bus. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:: That turns out not to be the case. Look at the Motorola databooks for the 68000 but it had 24 address lines and 16 data lines. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Quite right. 24-bit address space, but the address registers were 32 bits wide. I was ''thinking'' 16-bit data bus, but my fingers typed "address bus." I think the way the article elaborates on this after the "MC68000 introduced in 1979" is enough to explain why the 68K was a 32-bit processor, though in some ways not a "full" 32-bit processor. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

== I suggest a link to my site 'How Computers Work: Processor and Main Memory' ==

I suggest a link to my site called 'How Computers Work: Processor and Main Memory' at http://www.fastchip.net/howcomputerswork/p1.html . It tells how a processor and memory work simply and in COMPLETE DETAIL. A microprocessor is a processor on a single chip. It is not to replace the 'How Stuff Works' link but compliment it. If you understand this book/site, you will understand PRECISELY what a microprocessor and its main parts are and how they work together. [[User:Thinkorrr|Thinkorrr]] 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== μP/μC Patent Disagreement ==

I just googled "Hyatt microprocessor" and found [http://www.datamath.org/Story/Intel.htm this]. Apparently TI overturned the earlier patent on the grounds that it was never implemented at the time. --[[User:Deathgecko|ArtifexCrastinus]] 06:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Exhaustive Discussion (with references) of history of invention: Schaller PhD thesis chapter 7 ==

...see http://home.comcast.net/~gordonepeterson2/schaller_dissertation_2004.pdf

The paper can be found on the Computer History Museum web site: http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/documents/doc-487ecec0af0da.pdf <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:GilCarrick|GilCarrick]] ([[User talk:GilCarrick|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GilCarrick|contribs]]) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The main article is missing, among other things, the Four Phase AL1 (of of several claims prior to Intel 4004). Schaller's discussion is even-handed and makes it clear that the history is complicated enough for it to be impossible to simply pick a "winner" as being "the first".

Schaller begins "CHAPTER 7: The Invention of the Microprocessor, Revisited" with an excellent selection of quotes from other cited sources:

"The 4004, invented by Intel, was the world's first commercially available microprocessor."
(Intel website)1

"TI invents the single-chip microcomputer and receives the first patent for the single-chipmicroprocessor, ushering in the personal
computer era." (Texas Instruments website)2

"The first microprocessor in a commercial
product was Lee Boysel's AL1, which was
designed and built at Four-Phase for use in a
terminal application in 1969." (Nick Tredennick)3

"Alongside to the IC, the invention of the
'micro-processor' (MPU - Micro Processing
Unit) is the greatest invention of the 20th
century in the field of electronics." (Busicom
Corp.)4

"[T]he idea of putting the computer on a chip
was a fairly obvious thing to do. People had
been talking about it in the literature for some
time, it's just... I don't think at that point anybody
realized that the technology had advanced to
the point where if you made a simple enough
processor, it was now feasible.~] (Ted Hoff)5

"Having been involved with integrated
electronics when I was at Intel, we never
conceived of patenting a computer on a chip
or CPU on a chip, because the idea was
patently obvious. That is you worked on a
processor with 25 chips, then 8 chips, and by-
God eventually you get one chip so where's
'the invention'." (Stan Mazor)6

Such inventions don't come from new scientific
principles but from the synthesis of existing
principles... Because these inventions have a
certain inevitability about them, the real
contribution lies in making them work. (Federico
Faggin)7

[A]t the time in the early 1970s, late 1960s,
the industry was ripe for the invention of the
microprocessor. With the industry being ready
for it, I think the microprocessor would have
been born in 1971 or 1972, just because the
technology and the processing capability were
there. (Hal Feeney)8

"I don't think anyone 'invented' the
microprocessor. Having lived through it, this
[claim] sounds so silly." (Victor Poor)9

"It is problematic to call the microprocessor an
'invention' when every invention rides on the
shoulders of past inventions." (Ted Hoff)10

"Most of us who have studied the question of
the origin of the microprocessor have concluded
that it was simply an idea whose time had
come. Throughout the 1960's there was an
increasing count of the number of transistors
that could be fabricated on one substrate, and
were several programs in existence, both
commercial and government funded, to
fabricate increasingly complex systems in a
monolithic fashion. (Robert McClure)11

The question of 'who invented the
microprocessor?' is, in fact, a meaningless
one in any non-legal sense. The
microprocessor is not really an invention at all;
it is an evolutionary development, combining
functions previously implemented on separate
devices into one chip. Furthermore, no one
individual was responsible for coming up with
this idea or making it practical. There were
multiple, concurrent efforts at several
companies, and each was a team effort that
relied on the contributions of several people.?
(Microprocessor Report)12

"The emergence of microprocessors is not due
to foresight, astute design or advanced
planning. It has been accidental." (Rodnay
Zaks)13

"The only thing that was significant about the
microprocessor was that it was cheap! People
now miss this point entirely." (Stan Mazor)14

1
"Intel Consumer Desktop PC Microprocessor History Timeline,"
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/backgrnd/30thann_timeline.pdf
2
"History of Innovation: 1970s," http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/1970s.shtml
3
Nick Tredennick, "Technology and Business: Forces Driving Microprocessor Evolution," Proceedings of the
IEEE, Vol. 83, No. 12, December 1995, 1647.
4
"Innovation: The World's first MPU 4004," http://www.dotpoint.com/xnumber/agreement0.htm
5
Ted Hoff as quoted in Rob Walker, "Silicon Genesis: Oral Histories of Semiconductor Industry Pioneers, Interview with Marcian (Ted) Hoff, Los Altos Hills, California" Stanford University, March 3, 1995.
6
Stan Mazor, Stanford University Online Lecture, May 15, 2002, 020515-ee380-100,
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/
7
Federico Faggin, "The Birth Of The Microprocessor: An invention of major social and technological impact
reaches its twentieth birthday," Byte, Volume 2, 1992, 145, http://www.uib.es/c-
calculo/scimgs/fc/tc1/html/MicroProcBirth.html
8
"Microprocessor pioneers reminisce: looking back on the world of 16-pin, 2000-transistor microprocessors,"
Microprocessor Report, Vol. 5, No. 24, December 26, 1991, 13(6). Hal Feeney helped design the 8008 at
Intel.
9
Vic Poor, former vice president of research R&D for Datapoint, telephone interview with the author, June 5,
2003.
10
Dean Takahashi, "Yet Another 'Father' of the Microprocessor Wants Recognition From the Chip Industry,"
Wall Street Journal, September 22, 1998, http://www.microcomputerhistory.com/f14wsj1.htm
11
See e-mail/newsgroup posting to Dave Farber's IP list dated May 12, 2002 to Dave Farber
dave@farber.net McClure was formerly with TI and helped found CTC; he also was an expert witness in the
Boone patent case.
12
Microprocessor Report, op. cit.
13
Rodnay Zaks, Microprocessors: from chips to systems, 3/e, SYBEX Inc., 1980, First Edition Published
1977, 29.
14
Stan Mazor, telephone interview with the author, June 10, 2003.

It's a rich source of information for enhancing the main article (and quite interesting reading for its own sake)

[[User:Dougmerritt|Dougmerritt]] 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First 16bit single chip processor contradiction-
"National introduced the first 16-bit single-chip microprocessor, the National Semiconductor PACE..." and then a paragraph or so later, "The first single-chip 16-bit microprocessor was TI's TMS 9900..."

== Dead Link: History of general purpose CPU ==

There is no such article. If someone removed it, please provide a substitute. If not, please remove the link. [[User:Landroo|Landroo]] 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
: Fixed. [[User:MFNickster|MFNickster]] 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Wayne D. Pickette ==

Look at these articles everyone!

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/12/08/17088681.php<br />

http://www.thocp.net/biographies/pickette_wayne.html


Its about the real brains and the actual "father" of the microprocessor. How come he isn't included in this article? And there isn't a single mention of him in Wikipedia either! His name doesn't appear anywhere as far as I've seen! Seriously this is one great guy screwed by Intel, Fairchild etc. big time!

And this is to the moderator(s): kindly dont hide what I've just (with a * or whatever). Certain stuff needs to be spoken out loud!

Hope he gets the credit due to him soon!



[[User:Krishvanth|Krishvanth]] ([[User talk:Krishvanth|talk]]) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Funny ==

It's funny how this article explains jack shit about how microprocessors work. The most simple thing this article should have is somehow nonexistant. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.28.55.114|137.28.55.114]] ([[User talk:137.28.55.114|talk]]) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: See [[Central processing unit#CPU operation]]. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

== Military use in F-14 Tomcat ==

<blockquote>
In 1968, Garrett AiResearch, with designer Ray Holt and Steve Geller, were invited to produce a digital computer to compete with electromechanical systems then under development for the main flight control computer in the US Navy's new F-14 Tomcat fighter.
</blockquote>

The processor was used for the flight control computer, or for the Fire Control System (FCS)? Because as far as I know, the Tomcat didn't have a fly-by-wire control system. Maybe the author meant the FCS but got confused? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.107.73.166|79.107.73.166]] ([[User talk:79.107.73.166|talk]]) 05:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== History of microprocessors ==

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. [[User:Rilak|Rilak]] ([[User talk:Rilak|talk]]) 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

: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. — [[User:Aluvus|<font style="background: #3371A3" color="#FFFFFF">Aluvus</font>]] [[User talk:Aluvus|t]]/[[Special:contributions/Aluvus|c]] 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:: 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? [[User:Rilak|Rilak]] ([[User talk:Rilak|talk]]) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

==added citations==

added citations to the first types section[[User:Matsuiny2004|Matsuiny2004]] ([[User talk:Matsuiny2004|talk]]) 21:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

can somebody do some more research on the TMS 1000 since the source I have used considers it a microcontroller. If this is so then should it not be moved to the micro controllers article?[[User:Matsuiny2004|Matsuiny2004]] ([[User talk:Matsuiny2004|talk]]) 22:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

==added section==

added a small section on history of general purpose microprocessors[[User:Matsuiny2004|Matsuiny2004]] ([[User talk:Matsuiny2004|talk]]) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

==Basic block diagram==
It's been decades since I've been that deep into the matter, but we used to have these simple block diagrams of the essential components of a microprocessor. If s.o. knows what I'm talking about and still has one or can find one it would be nice if we could add something like that to this page. [[Special:Contributions/71.236.24.129|71.236.24.129]] ([[User talk:71.236.24.129|talk]]) 09:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

==Early History==

Datapoint never used the 8008 or 8080 altho they did play a role in their creation. They were too slow. The only unit I recall that used a single-chip "microprocessor" was their 15xx series which used the Z80.
more info here:
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/doc.asp?c=596

and more:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9111341

[[User:KLWhitehead|Ken]] ([[User talk:KLWhitehead|talk]]) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the appropriate text in the main article to reflect this.[[User:KLWhitehead|Ken]] ([[User talk:KLWhitehead|talk]]) 02:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

== Mfgs and markets ==

So, I'm in a minor edit war with what I assume to be the same anonymous contributor (IP address varies, but writing style and method is the same -- you may want to [[WP:WHY|register an account]] to make things clearer, or at least provide a handle in the edit summary). I keep removing a giant list of manufacturers, and the other contributor keeps putting it back in, with an edit summary that implies they are concerned that the article gives the impression that the microprocessors used in general-purpose PCs are the only applications.

I find that's a reasonable concern. If you want to make sure it is understood that microprocessors are used both in general-purpose and embedded designs, by all means, do so. But please do so in prose, by discussing applications in both GP PCs and embedded systems. Ideally, [[WP:CITE|cite]] market-share figures in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], for both applications. It would be nice to know what the percentages are. (Be aware that we currently draw a distinction between [[microprocessor]] and [[microcontroller]]. Perhaps both articles should be clarified.)


== 8 bit vs 32 bit ==
However, I must insist that dumping a huge list of manufacturers into the article is the wrong thing to do. This is purely an editorial/style objection. Lists belong in the list pages we already have. They should not be duplicated here.


Thanks. —<small>[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|hist]])</small> 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


There seems to be a bit of conflict between fans of 8-bit chips and fans of 32-bit chips.
== Voyager didn't have an 1802 µprocessor on board.. ==
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.
Well, at least according to the [[RCA 1802]] article it didn't. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stib|Stib]] ([[User talk:Stib|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stib|contribs]]) 23:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I've been able to add both points of view on energy:
== Transputer - not worth a mention at all ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer


* I added the Saether and Fredriksen reference. If I'm reading it correctly, it unambiguously says that 8-bit processors have several advantages over 32-bit processors, including less energy and lower noise.
[[User:Skyshack|Skyshack]] ([[User talk:Skyshack|talk]]) 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
* I added other references that say that it is "not true" that 8-bit processors use less energy than 32-bit processors.
:So? Why should this article mention the Transputer family? Tell us more. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::I agree that it deserves at least a passing mention. Can't say why exactly, other than my vague opinion "it is a significant part of microprocessor history", especially concerning parallelism -- [[User:Nczempin|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin|talk]]) 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::: Having failed to delete all of WP's articles on transistors, [[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] is presumably shifting his attention to microprocessors.
::: We should probably mention [[VIPER microprocessor|Viper]] too. Even though it was a failure, it was a notable attempt in one particular direction. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Not sure if the [[WP:CIVIL|potshot was necessary]]. [[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] asked in perfectly neutral tone why the OP thought Transputer should be included. Given that at least one other person (yours truly) cannot easily deliver a more convincing argument than his opinion, the question seems entirely appropriate. Viper would IMHO have to demonstrate a lot more importance in its own article before it could be considered here. Perhaps you want to start another thread. It does make [[Transputer]] look good in comparison, not sure if that was the intent :-). -- [[User:Nczempin|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin|talk]]) 22:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::::: [[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] has spent the last week parroting the view that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055|anything electronic with a part number]] is inherently non-notable. Stuff that. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Getting back to the topic of this article, was the Transputer as big a deal as it seemed at the time? It got a lot of press but seems to have faded away as "regular" microprocessors caught up; I wonder why the Transputer didn't keep its lead over more complicated processors. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 23:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:Well, first of all, it was (and the article is) somewhat disadvantaged as a British design in an American-dominated world (this by itself is of course no justification for its inclusion, just a note why it seems to be overlooked quite a bit). Secondly, it was probably a great deal ahead of its time; only with current developments after the GHz limit has been pretty much reached are we starting to "re-discover" parallelism. I wouldn't want a whole page on the transputer in the mP article, but a sentence or two wouldn't be wrong. Perhaps it would make sense to start by giving it a little more space in the more specialized articles on [[parallel computing]]. -- [[User:Nczempin|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin|talk]])
: Why, are you planning to delete this too? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 00:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::No, I'm editing encyclopedia articles. [[WP:BOLD|You can, too.]]. My rather elderly IEEE computer encyclopedia has a disappointing article "transputer" which tells me nothing about why they didn't catch on. The multiple communication ports in the processor seems not to have endured to other designs (though someone much more hip to the current Intel designs might shed some light here). Parallelism doesn't seem to get applied except for graphics and number-crunching. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Alas, those other references don't seem to mention noise or the other issues brought up by Saether and Fredriksen.
==Info==
So does pretty much everyone agree that 8-bit processors (when fabbed at the same technology level) produce less noise than 32-bit processors?
I think that this page doesn't offer enough information, such as how they function, how the transistors work, what type of transistors there are, such as MOSFETS. Then again, no a lot of people need to learn all that. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Patrick-liu11|Patrick-liu11]] ([[User talk:Patrick-liu11|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Patrick-liu11|contribs]]) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Or is there a reliable source we can reference that has some other point of view, that we should mention in this article?
:We have more than one page in Wikipedia: How they work: [[CPU]], [[CPU design]]. What microprocessors are made out of: [[Logic gate]]. [[Transistors]] including [[MOSFET]]s. If you feel that those articles are deficient in some way, go ahead and help [[WP:BB|improve them]]! Note however that Wikipedia is not a textbook. Perhaps [[Wikibooks]] or [[Wikiversity]] would be more appropriate. The pages on those sites can also improved by you. -- [[User:Nczempin|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin|talk]]) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


: Those references were deleted in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Microprocessor&diff=prev&oldid=887959563 later edit]. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 04:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
== TMS 1000 ==


== A proposal ==
This section implies that in the opinion of the Smithsonian staff the TMS 1000 was the first microprocessor. In fact, the link is to a page from a book that the Smithsonian has scanned in called STATE OF THE ART. The bottom of the page says "The National Museum of American History and the Smithsonian Institution make no claims as to the accuracy or completeness of this work." The information in this section was discredited in connection with litigation in the 1990s, when Texas Instruments claimed to have patented the microprocessor. In response, Lee Boysel assembled a system in which a single 8-bit AL1 was used as part of a courtroom demonstration computer system, together with ROM, RAM and an input-output device. See the Wikipedia article on Four Phase Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Phase_Systems_AL1 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:GilCarrick|GilCarrick]] ([[User talk:GilCarrick|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GilCarrick|contribs]]) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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


<mark style="background:Silver">[[User:Bobherry|<span style="color:red;">Bobherry</span>]] [[User talk:Bobherry|<span style="color:white;">Talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bobherry|<span style="color:blue;">Edits</span>]] </mark> 01:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This page has obviously gone through a lot of editing and the result it that it contradicts itself in several places. The section on the Four-Phase Systems AL1 was apparently added somewhat late in the evolution. It refers to the litigation where TI tried to overturn Intel microprocessor patents. The case was dismissed when Lee Boysel demonstrated that the Four Phase AL1 processor predated both the TI and Intel designs.


== About this ==
The section titled "Firsts" says that "Three projects delivered a microprocessor at about the same time," and mentions TI, Intel and the CADC. It should at least also mention the AL1 since it was clearly first.


I have additional matter about this [[User:Nadimpalli bhargav|Nadimpalli bhargav]] ([[User talk:Nadimpalli bhargav|talk]]) 08:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The section titled "Intel 4004" says "The Intel 4004 is generally regarded as the first microprocessor." This is contradicted by the section on the AL1.


== Microprocessor vs CPU ==
The section titled "8-bit designs" says "The Intel 4004 was followed in 1972 by the Intel 8008, the world's first 8-bit microprocessor." The AL1 was an 8 bit processor and predated the 4004, much less the 8008. See the Wikipedia article on the Four Phase AL1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Phase_Systems_AL1 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:GilCarrick|GilCarrick]] ([[User talk:GilCarrick|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GilCarrick|contribs]]) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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. --[[User:Notcharliechaplin|Notcharliechaplin]] ([[User talk:Notcharliechaplin|talk]]) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
== 8086 Memory Segmentation Model ==


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. [[User:TaylorLeem|TaylorLeem]] ([[User talk:TaylorLeem|talk]]) 22:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I just recently made an edit to the article which included a small change on the subject named by the title of this section, and I left a note in the edit summary referring here. The article had described the x86 memory segmentation model prior to the introduction of the 80286 (i.e. the x86 real mode memory model) as "crude"; I slightly adjusted this to remove bias. While it is undeniable that many programmers disliked (and even hated, sometimes intensely) the 8086 segment register design, calling 8086 memory segmentation "crude" is an opinion; the word has a pejorative connotation and implies a negative judgement along with the objective characterization that this aspect of the 8086 is not sophisticated or advanced. Contrasting 8086 segmentation with other processors' designs, it was clearly innovative (noting that not all innovations are improvements over past designs); this is evident from the simple fact that no microprocessor before the 8086 used any memory segmentation method quite like it, and none received qualitatively similar criticism. 8086 segmentation is also undeniably limited, particularly in that every segment is 64 KB in size, making it undisputedly difficult (or at least a non-trivial problem) to deal with large data objects (such as arrays or instances of implementations of any kind of ADT), i.e. ones larger than 64K bytes (= 64 KiB = 65536 Bytes). This is a tradeoff in an engineering design that, it should be remembered, was a solution to the problem of making a moderate-cost 16-bit processor able to address more than 2^16 words, (i.e. able to drive more than 16 address bus lines). But nonetheless, it is a limit, and one that many 8086 programmers found themselves having to deal with frequently.
:
: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. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


== Gilbert Hyatt's Patent Battles on Microprocessors ==
On the other hand, in my opinion, I find this (the difficuly with >64 K memory blocks) to be the only really major disadvantage of the strategy the 8086 design engineers chose, and I otherwise find the 8086 memory segmentation model extremely flexible. You can use it like a bank-switching system, like a double-register addressing system (in the mode of the HL register of the 6502 CPU), or for up to two-level plus immediate indexed addressing ([base address in segment] + BX + SI + [immediate displacement]). Perhaps it takes an imaginative attitude and a fresh perspective.


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. [[User:CessnaMan1989|CessnaMan1989]] ([[User talk:CessnaMan1989|talk]]) 16:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering all of this, I have changed "crude" to "innovative but limited", which is objective and, I believe, fair. I call it fair because it balances what is generally considered a positive quality (innovation) with a negative one (limitation). It also avoids injecting inappropriate details into this article, as a more detailed characterization of the processor's memory addressing model would.


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. [[User:TaylorLeem|TaylorLeem]] ([[User talk:TaylorLeem|talk]]) 22:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
(For readers unfamilar with x86 real mode, it basically works like this: All addresses are 20-bit values that are each built from two 16-bit values, called the "segment" and the "offset". The innovative part is that rather than each bit of the finished address coming from either the segment or the offset, the segment is shifted left by four bits [i.e. multiplied by sixteen] and then added to the offset to generate the 20-bit address. For dealing with the segment parts of address, the CPU has four segment registers, one for code (which is always combined with the IP to generate the execution address), two for data, and one for the stack. Most instructions have default segment registers from which they get the segment part of any addresses in their operands, but those can be overridden with opcode prefixes. A key aspect that is unusual is that there are multiple segment and offset combinations [4096 of them, in fact] that correspond to each physical address. This system has been much maligned for being allegedly too complicated and illogical, but it actually makes sense, and it in fact does work, as the existence of thousands of MS-DOS software tiles attests. Of course, just because it works doesn't logically imply it's any good.)


== RCA CDP1802 ==
It appears to me that this topic could easily be the subject of a flame war (among people who care about old CPUs, of which I of course am one), and I certainly am not out to start one of those pointless wastes of time, especially here on WP of all places. I personally have a decent respect for the 8086 and the accomplishment of the Intel engineers that designed it, while admitting that the 80286 is better, the 80386 is even better, and the Motorola 68000 is better than either of the first two or maybe all three of those, discounting cost and from a programmer's perspective. Still, I think I removed a significant but subtle bias from the sentence about the 8086 (a.k.a. x86 real mode) segmented memory model, and I hope the WP community will agree. I just wanted to explain my reasoning.
--Stephen [[Special:Contributions/74.109.5.17|74.109.5.17]] ([[User talk:74.109.5.17|talk]]) 12:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Integration of 4 CD4057 Accumulator/ALU and array of CD40108 triple port Ram and microsequencer. Orthogonal instruction set. [[User:TaylorLeem|TaylorLeem]] ([[User talk:TaylorLeem|talk]]) 22:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
==Catalog==
Once again, we get a list of part numbers but very little explanation as to *why* there were so many part numbers. Why did we waste all that money on 6502s when the Itanium is clearly a better processor? A little history might be more encyclopediac than a recitation of part numbers, as popular as those are. Isn't there a [[List of microprocessor]] someehere that we can point at here instead of reciting numbers with no reasons behind them? --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 16:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


== India Education Program course assignment ==
:Hey, we have [[List of 7400 series integrated circuits]] and with enough 7400 series integrated circuits you can build an Itanium... Seriously, though, There seems to be a description of each part so it is hardly "reciting numbers with no reasons behind them." It could be improved of course, '''[[WP:SOFIXIT]]'''. --[[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 18:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
[[File:Wikipedia-Ambassador-Program-Logo.png|50px]] This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by [[Wikipedia:Education program/Ambassadors|Wikipedia Ambassadors]] through the [[Wikipedia:India Education Program|India Education Program]]&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term.&#32;Further details are available [[Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Computer Organization and Advanced Microprocessing|on the course page]].[[Category:India Education Program student projects, 2011 Q3|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:India Education Program student projects]]
:: So helpful. YOu are as scholarly as you are sociable. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


::: ''' * * GROUP HUG * * ''' :) [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 20:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
{{small|The above message was substituted from {{tlc|IEP assignment}} by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) on 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)}}


== Intel 4004/TMS1802NC Dispute ==
== Look out for possible copyright violations in this article ==
This article has been found to be edited by students of the [[Wikipedia:India Education Program]] project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the [[Wikipedia talk:India Education Program|India Education Program talk page]] for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. --[[User:Matthiaspaul|Matthiaspaul]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspaul|talk]]) 14:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


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. [[User:Aldaron lorem|Aldaron lorem]] ([[User talk:Aldaron lorem|talk]]) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
== Error? ==


:All of the evidence is present in the TMS1802 and TMX 1795 sections.
Please check/correct
: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) [[Special:Contributions/94.21.161.212|94.21.161.212]] ([[User talk:94.21.161.212|talk]]) 00:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
::
::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? [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 02:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
:::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). [[Special:Contributions/178.164.222.20|178.164.222.20]] ([[User talk:178.164.222.20|talk]]) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
::::an update to the [https://www.righto.com/2015/05/the-texas-instruments-tmx-1795-first.html#ref25 righto article] is now saying the 4004 beat the TMX as the first microprocessor:
::::> "TMX 1795 almost became the first microprocessor. (Originally I thought the TMX 1795 was the first microprocessor, but it appears that the 4004 slightly beat it.)"
::::So I deleted the "definitively false" statement. I would also suggest "The [[Intel 4004]] is often (falsely) regarded" be changed to "The [[Intel 4004]] is often claimed". It is problematic for wikipedia to definitive say "true" or "false" cause as the many articles go into, the debate depends on precise definition of what is a single chip microprocessor. For instance, the TMS1802 is more specifically considered a "microcontroller" cause its entire program memory is self contained and it isn't programmable on the fly. And as the righto article argues, while the AL1 could be wired into receiving decoded microinstructions, it doesn't have instruction decode on chip and the "ROM controls memory read/write, selects an ALU operation, and provides the address of the next microcode instruction (there's no program counter)" even though the courtroom demonstration was compelling. [[User:Em3rgent0rdr|Em3rgent0rdr]] ([[User talk:Em3rgent0rdr|talk]]) 21:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== Naming ==
"l, with TI as intervenor and owner of the microprocessor patent." [sic]


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 [[User:Pancho507|Pancho507]] ([[User talk:Pancho507|talk]]) 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
shouldn't this be "inventor" or am I missing something legalistic?
:
: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.) [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
: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? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 13:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:45, 30 December 2024

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:

  • I added the Saether and Fredriksen reference. If I'm reading it correctly, it unambiguously says that 8-bit processors have several advantages over 32-bit processors, including less energy and lower noise.
  • I added other references that say that it is "not true" that 8-bit processors use less energy than 32-bit processors.

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]
an update to the righto article is now saying the 4004 beat the TMX as the first microprocessor:
> "TMX 1795 almost became the first microprocessor. (Originally I thought the TMX 1795 was the first microprocessor, but it appears that the 4004 slightly beat it.)"
So I deleted the "definitively false" statement. I would also suggest "The Intel 4004 is often (falsely) regarded" be changed to "The Intel 4004 is often claimed". It is problematic for wikipedia to definitive say "true" or "false" cause as the many articles go into, the debate depends on precise definition of what is a single chip microprocessor. For instance, the TMS1802 is more specifically considered a "microcontroller" cause its entire program memory is self contained and it isn't programmable on the fly. And as the righto article argues, while the AL1 could be wired into receiving decoded microinstructions, it doesn't have instruction decode on chip and the "ROM controls memory read/write, selects an ALU operation, and provides the address of the next microcode instruction (there's no program counter)" even though the courtroom demonstration was compelling. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2024 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microprocessor&oldid=1266267194"