24 May
2016
24 May
'16
2:54 p.m.
On May 24, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Liam Proven <lproven
at gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 May 2016 at 04:52, Guy Sotomayor Jr <ggs at shiresoft.com> wrote:
My definition of a CPU?s bitness is the native register width and not the
bus width (or ALU width).
Because the 808x was a 16-bit processor with 1MB
physical addressing. I
would argue that for the time 808x was brilliant in that most other 16-bit
micros only allowed for 64KB physical.
Er, hang on. I'm not sure if my knowledge isn't good enough or if that's a
typo.
AFAIK most *8* bits only supported 64 kB physical. Most *16* bits
(e.g. 68000, 65816, 80286, 80386SX) supported 16MB physical RAM.
Am I missing something here?
I always considered the 8088/8086 as a sort of hybrid 8/16-bit processor.
From that definition, the 8088/8086 are 16-bit CPUs. I
would certainly
consider the 68K, etc to be 32-bit CPUs. The 80286 was definitely a
16-bit
CPU and *any* 80386 (SX, DX, whatever) are most definitely 32-bits.
Your argument would say that most of the low end IBM 360?s would be
16-bit machines which is insane.
TTFN - Guy