13 Oct
2007
13 Oct
'07
7:46 a.m.
From: cclist at sydex.com> > On 12 Oct 2007 at
23:02, Brent Hilpert wrote:> > > Can't testify to it's accuracy but one
of my favorite quips about the 4004> > is the reason it had that multiplexed 4-bit
bus/machine cycle was to squish> > it into a 16-pin package because management
didn't want to tool up for larger> > packages.> > Sounds like an urban
legend to me. 24-pin packages were around in > the Intel line then, I believe. In any
case, the 8008 followed suit > with an 18-pin package. I suspect that multiplexing
didn't matter > much to the overall speed of the thing.
Hi
This was what Federico Faggin had stated at a talk he gave at the CHM.
Packaging was expensive and they'd made volume deals on 16 pin
packages. Faggin stated that his design could have been a few times
faster had he not been restricted to the small bus.
> While the 8080 wasn't multiplexed, the 8085
was, as was the > 8086/8088. I don't think it was thought to matter.
The 4004/4040 had an 8 cycle muxing of the bus. The later ones
were just two cycle. Package size was always a dominating
cost and defined many projects.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us