15 May
2002
15 May
'02
7:56 p.m.
I'd agree, though I have serious doubts about that number being in any sense
reflective of the number of transistors in the device. Remember that a
state-of-the-art CPU in 1979 (that humungous HP thing) claimed to have 400K+
transistors on it if the newspaper reports are to be believed. During that
same timespan, I understood that IBM was quietly putting 1M gates in their
in-house production gate arrays and in 1"-square packages with 80 pins, for
example. Density of packaging and of geometry didn't seem to stand in their
way.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CCTALK] transistor counts again
Yeah.
The 4004 was once rumored to have been named that because it had the
equivalent of 4004 transistors.
I find that hard to believe. The 4004 was part of a chipset containing
the 4001 (ROM), 4002 (RAM) and 4003 (I forget exactly what, some kind of
I/O?). The 4001 and 4002 parts were used in lots of 4004 or 4040-based
designs.
THAT is what probably gave rise to the 68000
silliness.
It's MUCH more impressive what was done with only 486!
That's 80486, surely :-)
-tony
_______________________________________________
cctalk mailing list
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk