2 May
2001
2 May
'01
12:36 p.m.
Thos of you interested in Zuse's old work should move to
www.zuse.org
This site is made by Karl Zuse's son. The site mainly exists to sell a
multimedia CD that is upposed to be filled to the brink with information on
Karl Zuse's machines, from the mechanical Z1 until the end of the Zuse company.
An interesting note : a copy of the Z3 is being made, with modern relais that
feature a LED reflecting the relais state. This machine will make the rounds in
Germany soon.
Jos Dreesen
3 May
3 May
10:18 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Does anyone know how many transistors made up the 6502? These days with
Intel's boasting of the number of transistors their latest processors use,
it'd be interesting to know what we used to get by using. What, it can't
have been more than a few thousand, right?
And then it'd be rather fun to implement your very own 6502 using 74*
series logic chips.
-brian.
6:51 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:18:11 -0500
From: Brian Chase <bdc(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
And then it'd be rather fun to implement your very own 6502 using 74*
series logic chips.
Possible, but length of traces to wire all those together will keep
it to KHz range and needs few large boards that needs so much power
that hottest athlon cpu is low power by comparsion.
I have seen photos of apple IIe prototype laid out on early
pre-production logic board, one of that 40 pin chipset socket is
hooked to a equally same size board filled to the 4 edges with
tightly packed TTLs and few large ICs, I think it was shown in Byte
as well as few other publicatons. Large board full of chips vs. 40
pin IC, same thing...Amazing!
Side effect to this, you get less power requirement and can speed up
whole thing and more rapid signals due to very short traces and
on-die itself.
That is why TTL-based microcomputers and mainframes has massive PSUs
even using switching technologies and mini-tunnel wind effect to cool
everything. While same computing power can be on one 4pin chip
microcontroller and run on 1 AA directly for hours even weeks under
hottest sun.
Cheers,
Wizard
4 May
4 May
2:12 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
I have seen photos of apple IIe prototype laid out on
early
pre-production logic board, one of that 40 pin chipset socket is
hooked to a equally same size board filled to the 4 edges with
tightly packed TTLs and few large ICs, I think it was shown in Byte
as well as few other publicatons. Large board full of chips vs. 40
pin IC, same thing...Amazing!
Then there is the Amiga prototype that was spread across four
large boards, 1 for each custom chip.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
6:23 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
jpero(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
Nope. If you know what you're doing, you can wire wrap boards pretty
easy up to 20-30 MHz.
We had to do it many times for graphic boards.
cheers
And then it'd be rather fun to implement your
very own 6502 using 74*
series logic chips.
Possible, but length of traces to wire all those together will keep
it to KHz range and needs few large boards that needs so much power
that hottest athlon cpu is low power by comparsion. 
7:52 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
My first prototype of my all-digital clock-data separator circuitry was
wire-wrapped and operated nicely at 80 MHz. The speeds mentioned by Emanuel are
certainly realistic, and certainly not the upper end of what was done with
wire-wrapped high-speed logic.
When high-speed (CMOS/STTL/FTTL) circuits failed to function reliably using
wirewrap technology, it was normally due to inadequate power supply
distrubution/bypassing. ECL always worked very well with wirewrap, often
better than with PCB's.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "emanuel stiebler" <emu(a)ecubics.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
jpero(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
Nope. If you know what you're doing, you can wire wrap boards pretty
easy up to 20-30 MHz.
We had to do it many times for graphic boards.
cheers
And then it'd be rather fun to implement your
very own 6502 using 74*
series logic chips.
Possible, but length of traces to wire all those together will keep
it to KHz range and needs few large boards that needs so much power
that hottest athlon cpu is low power by comparsion.
7:48 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Please see remarks embedded below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpero(a)sympatico.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Back in the mid-80's I built a 6502 equivalent circuit in STTL using
wire-wrap
and fit it on a nominally 5x8" wirewrap board with space remaining. I didn't
measure power, but that's not the issue. I didn't implement the extra adder
stages in the ALU to support the BCD-mode instructions, but otherwise the thing
seemed to execute the existing 6502 code adequately. This sort of thing is not
easy to verify in an APPLE environment because of the timing accomodations made
to support seamless integration into the NTSC video scheme.
I don't remember the scale on which the NMOS 6502 was built but it must have
been about 4-5 microns. In '85 they guys in the IC mfg industry were bragging
up their 2 micron process.
Date:
Fri, 4 May 2001 02:18:11 -0500
From: Brian Chase <bdc(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
And then it'd be rather fun to implement your very own 6502 using 74*
series logic chips.
Possible, but length of traces to wire all those together will keep
it to KHz range and needs few large boards that needs so much power
that hottest athlon cpu is low power by comparsion.
I have seen photos of apple IIe prototype laid out on early
pre-production logic board, one of that 40 pin chipset socket is
hooked to a equally same size board filled to the 4 edges with
tightly packed TTLs and few large ICs, I think it was shown in Byte
as well as few other publicatons. Large board full of chips vs. 40
pin IC, same thing...Amazing!
It's not a bad idea to remember that in '79, when HP was bragging up their
450k-transistor CPU that dissipated 7 watts, IBM was routinely making IC's with
1M transistors in packages about an inch square. They just didn't brag about
it.
Side effect to this, you get less power requirement and can speed up
whole thing and more rapid signals due to very short traces and
on-die itself.
That is why TTL-based microcomputers and mainframes has massive PSUs
even using switching technologies and mini-tunnel wind effect to cool
everything. While same computing power can be on one 4pin chip
microcontroller and run on 1 AA directly for hours even weeks under
hottest sun.
While some of the points made here are arguably correct, taken by themselves,
they don't wash in a real-world/real-history context.
Cheers,
Wizard
8:39 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1862 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010504/60be9bc3/at…
10:09 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Is anyone else having a problem with mails coming from ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk? They come
out blank on my end.
Bob Mason
--
Bob Mason
2x Amiga 500's, GVP A530 (40mhz 68030/68882, 8meg Fast, SCSI), 1.3/3.1, 2meg Chip,
full ECS chipset, EZ135, 1084S, big harddrives, 2.2xCD
Gateway Performance 500 Piece 'o Crap, 'ME, 128meg, 20Gig, flatbed.
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
11:36 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Yes. That is Tony (Hi Tony!) and for some reason they come out in Opera 5.x
as just an attachment that is unopenable (strange but his are the only ones).
--Chuck
At 03:09 PM 5/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
Is anyone else having a problem with mails coming from
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk? They come out blank on my end.
Bob Mason
11:56 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
At 03:09 PM 5/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
Strange, they're just fine in 'elm'. Last I checked they were also fine
under Eudora 4.0.2/Mac.
Zane
Is anyone else having a problem with mails coming
from
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk? They come out blank on my end.
Bob Mason
Yes. That is Tony (Hi Tony!) and for some reason they come out in Opera 5.x
as just an attachment that is unopenable (strange but his are the only ones).
--Chuck 
1 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Strange, they're just fine in 'elm'. Last
I checked they were also fine
under Eudora 4.0.2/Mac.
Ah, another Elm user. :-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Proponents of other opinions will be merrily beaten to a bloody pulp. ------
5:08 p.m.
New subject: elm
Strange,
they're just fine in 'elm'. Last I checked they were also fine
under Eudora 4.0.2/Mac.
Ah, another Elm user. :-) 
6:45 p.m.
New subject: elm
Strange, they're just fine in 'elm'. Last
I checked they were also fine
under Eudora 4.0.2/Mac.
Ah, another Elm user. :-)
10:25 p.m.
New subject: elm
Strange,
they're just fine in 'elm'. Last I checked they were also fine
under Eudora 4.0.2/Mac.
Ah, another Elm user. :-) 
5 May
5 May
12:06 a.m.
New subject: elm
Count me in as
another elm user (and a VAX, PDP-11, and
Alpha user). I keep hearing that I need to transition
to some other mail reader, but elm does what I want the
way I want it done. I also use tin rather than some GUI
news reader. I really prefer ANU-News as a news reader,
but it got to the point where it wasn't keeping up.
The Elm ME+ branch also has really nice features for PGP and attachments,
which is what I use.
I like nn best for news. Terse, but fast and hackable.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- The point of good writing is knowing when to stop. -- Lucy Montgomery ------
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1:55 a.m.
New subject: elm
Count me in as another elm user (and a VAX, PDP-11,
and
Alpha user). I keep hearing that I need to transition
to some other mail reader, but elm does what I want the
way I want it done. I also use tin rather than some GUI
news reader. I really prefer ANU-News as a news reader,
but it got to the point where it wasn't keeping up.
The Elm ME+ branch also has really nice features for PGP and attachments,
which is what I use.
I like nn best for news. Terse, but fast and hackable. 
9:44 a.m.
New subject: elm
My first ISP was a cheapo outfit that offered only shell access. You know
what, I don't miss elm, nn, et al a bleepin bit.
11:38 a.m.
New subject: modern? DEC 8" at TCF
Anybody want to help me ID this drive?
It appeared to be 8" platter, but new, approx
9"x7"x18" 20lb? or so, power-ish connector >6 pins
on one end, SCSI-ish on the other,
with the following >>> DEC <<< #'s:
P/N 70-26850-02 S/N KP04834329 Bearing
P/N 70-27265-01 S/N CX10325134 RevE09
P/N 70-27492-01 S/N CX10325134
It was very light for its size.
I'm probably going to go back and but 1 tomorrow ($10)
but will get more if people here want.
I was surprised to see such a large drive since the seller
said he got them new and most nonremoveable drives
made in the last 10 years have been 5.25~3.5 form factor.
Anyhoo, lemme know if'n you know/want.
John A.
1:21 p.m.
New subject: elm
Mike Ford skrev:
My first ISP was a cheapo outfit that offered only
shell access. You know
what, I don't miss elm, nn, et al a bleepin bit.
I would never even consider an ISP which weren't offering shell access. That
is what I call cheapo outfits. I hear that "modern" ISPs don't even offer
an
NNTP server.
OTOH, I'd never run elm or nn, not when there is pine and tin.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Georgie beundrade stor?gt sin pappa som med v?ldsamma slag gick l?s p? det
stora tr?det. Han badade i svett, och den muskul?sa kroppen bl?nkte i
solskenet. Hon ?lskade honom.
Lady Georgie, TMS 1983
9:54 p.m.
New subject: elm
OTOH, I'd never run elm or nn, not when there is
pine and tin.
Ugh, and ugh.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- You cannot have a science without measurement. -- R. W. Hamming ------------
4 May
4 May
12:25 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Is anyone else having a problem with mails coming from
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk? They come out blank on my end.
Bob Mason
They look fine under Eudora 5.0 on the Mac. I've never had a
problem reading Tony's emails.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
9:57 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
At 02:18 AM 5/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
Does anyone know how many transistors made up the 6502?
These days with
Intel's boasting of the number of transistors their latest processors use,
it'd be interesting to know what we used to get by using. What, it can't
have been more than a few thousand, right?
Wow -- such a long thread, and no answer yet that I've seen. The following
came from a few web sites, but mostly from these two:
http://www.intel.com/intel/museum/25anniv/hof/tspecs.htm
http://www.mznet.ne.jp/svd/multimedia.htm
4004 -- 2,300 (10 um)
8008 -- 3,500 (10 um)
8080 -- 6,000 (6 um)
z80 -- 8,500
6502 -- 4,000 one source, 9000 another source (I tend to believe the 4K
number more)
8086 -- 29,000 (3 um)
68000 -- 68,000 (lots of that in microcode)
80286 -- 134,000 (1.5 um)
80386 -- 275,000 (1 um)
-----
Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net
5 May
5 May
4:14 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
At 11:57 PM 5/4/01 -0700, you wrote:
6502 -- 4,000 one source, 9000 another source (I tend
to believe the 4K
number more)
Perhaps the 9000 quote is for a CMOS part?
Carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
5:20 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
While I don't know what the "real" numbers are, I'm inclined to believe
this
(4000) number, at least relative to the others just based on the internal
resources.
What I find odd, by the way, is that this ratio, seemingly quite reasonable,
doesn't show up in the IP-cores available today. While it's quite reasonable to
believe the 650x core with only four internal software-accessible registers
(A,X,Y, SP) would have a substantially lower gate count than a Z80, which has
lots of register resources, (A,B,C,D,E,H,L,IX,IY,SP, plus a second set of the
same) and it does, but nowhere near the ratio that these registers suggest. Of
course there are several ways of looking at the definition of "gate" but
it's
odd that the ratio of gates consumed by each of these cores doesn't approach the
2:1 that this estimate reflects. The production level
pricing, basically a
cost based on silicon by the pound, seems to reflect this same
ratio as do the
comparisons of the era when the 6502 was current.
What would be interesting, since it's conspicuously absent from the list quoted
below, is the transistor count in the 6802 (a 6800 with internal clock
generator) and 6809.
One thing that I found fascinating back in '81-'82 when MOT started a big push
for their two relatively new brain-children, the 68K and the 6805, was that the
6805 was, in fact, a bigger chip. They glued a bare chip to each data sheet
they passed out at their sales seminars back then and the 6805, with its
peripherals, timers, ram, ROM, etc, was markedly bigger. It made me wonder how
they fit the chip to the lead frame I was accustomed to associating with the 28
and 40-pin packages used for them.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Battle" <frustum(a)pacbell.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
At 02:18 AM 5/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
Does anyone know how many transistors made up the
6502? These days with
Intel's boasting of the number of transistors their latest processors use,
it'd be interesting to know what we used to get by using. What, it can't
have been more than a few thousand, right?
Wow -- such a long thread, and no answer yet that I've seen. The following
came from a few web sites, but mostly from these two:
http://www.intel.com/intel/museum/25anniv/hof/tspecs.htm
http://www.mznet.ne.jp/svd/multimedia.htm
4004 -- 2,300 (10 um)
8008 -- 3,500 (10 um)
8080 -- 6,000 (6 um)
z80 -- 8,500
6502 -- 4,000 one source, 9000 another source (I tend to believe the 4K
number more)
8086 -- 29,000 (3 um)
68000 -- 68,000 (lots of that in microcode)
80286 -- 134,000 (1.5 um)
80386 -- 275,000 (1 um)
-----
Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net
5:34 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
I tend to trust the 4000 number more also........
Especially since the source article that gives 9000 transistors
for the 6502 has a few other flaws. most strikingly.....
...... naming the Z80 as the host of CP/M where that clearly should
have been the 8080. That the Z80 is downward compatible is
nice but the native CP/M assembler was an 8080 assembler not
a Z80 assembler.
Sipke de Wal
------------------------------------------------
http://xgistor.ath.cx
------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
While I don't know what the "real"
numbers are, I'm inclined to believe this
(4000) number, at least relative to the others just based on the internal
resources.
8:19 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
From Microprocessor Report, in chronological order:
8008: 3.5K transistors 14 mm^2
6800: 4.1K transistors 16 mm^2
8080: 4.8K transistors 20 mm^2
1802: 5K transistors 27 mm^2
6502: 4K transistors 21 mm^2
Z80: 8.5K transistors 18 mm^2
8085: 6.5K transistors 20 mm^2
8086: 29K transistors 33 mm^2
8088: 29K transistors 33 mm^2
Z8001 17.5K transistors 39 mm^2
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
6809: 9K transistors 21 mm^2
I really hate to interrupt this group's speculation with actual data, but
I'm weird in that way.
-Mike
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Sipke de Wal wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 16:34:41 +0200
From: Sipke de Wal <sipke(a)wxs.nl>
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
I tend to trust the 4000 number more also........
Especially since the source article that gives 9000 transistors
for the 6502 has a few other flaws. most strikingly.....
...... naming the Z80 as the host of CP/M where that clearly should
have been the 8080. That the Z80 is downward compatible is
nice but the native CP/M assembler was an 8080 assembler not
a Z80 assembler.
Sipke de Wal
------------------------------------------------
http://xgistor.ath.cx
------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
While I don't know what the "real"
numbers are, I'm inclined to believe this
(4000) number, at least relative to the others just based on the internal
resources.
6:29 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Mike Cheponis wrote:
>From Microprocessor Report, in chronological
order:
6502: 4K transistors 21 mm^2
Nice, now if I could only get enough info to implement one in TTL. :-)
Silly, yes, but it would be a fun project.
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
I thought this was an interesting coincidence... the 68K transistor
count I mean.
-brian.
9:33 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
68000 68K
transistors 44 mm^2
I thought this was an interesting coincidence... the 68K transistor
count I mean.
6 May
6 May
7:52 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Though it could have been based on an estimate, the chip name/number, was
conjured up long before there could have been an accurate transistor count.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Tradition holds that the 68,000-transistor count gave the chip its name.
Someone here can confirm or deny, perhaps?
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
I thought this was an interesting coincidence... the 68K transistor
count I mean. Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- A service of the Department of the Redundancy
Department. ------------------
8:40 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Though it could have been based on an estimate, the
chip name/number, was
conjured up long before there could have been an accurate transistor count.
My guess is that 68000 as a name had a lot to do with adding a zero to 6800.
9:51 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Yes. That's what I believe as well.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ford" <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Though it could
have been based on an estimate, the chip name/number, was
conjured up long before there could have been an accurate transistor count.
My guess is that 68000 as a name had a lot to do with adding a zero to 6800.
10:02 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
My guess is that 68000 as a name had a lot to do with
adding a zero to 6800.
I have been told several times that the 4004 was named after being the
equivalent of 4004 transistors. I don't believe that. But what WAS the
origin of the name?
12:16 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 636 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010506/c55b6a57/at…
1:31 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
I have notes on this somewhere. In fact, I posted about this to BACCL
after my meeting with Ted Hoff in 1998. It was basically just the number
the marketing folks at Intel assigned to it. I believe the part number
being 4004 and the microprocessor being a 4-bitter was sheer coincidence.
I could go back and find the message if it's of that much interest.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
My guess is that 68000 as a name had a lot to do
with adding a zero to 6800.
I have been told several times that the 4004 was named after being the
equivalent of 4004 transistors. I don't believe that. But what WAS the
origin of the name?
11:58 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 329 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010506/cb54bf26/at…
7:48 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
I doubt it was really 68K transistors. If you multiply out the number of
transistors needed to implement the registers and counters, then add 50% for the
ALU and double the whole thing for the control logic, you'll probably have as
good a count.
Keep in mind that gate counts can be manipulated quite a bit by the marketing
guys. When you're building a gate, you can build a transistor with two
emitters. That functions as an AND gate. If you need a 3-input AND gate,
however, though it can be built with just another emitter the marketing guys
will tell you it's actually three AND gates. Transistor counts are probably not
that important.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Chase" <bdc(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Mike Cheponis wrote:
>From Microprocessor Report, in chronological
order:
6502: 4K transistors 21 mm^2
Nice, now if I could only get enough info to implement one in TTL. :-)
Silly, yes, but it would be a fun project.
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
I thought this was an interesting coincidence... the 68K transistor
count I mean.
-brian.
8:30 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
That's a valid assumption for TTL but not for NMOS
PMOS! And CMOS actually needs roughly the double
amount of transistors
I've never heard of mos-multi-emitter-transistors
Sipke de Wal
------------------------------------------------------
http://xgistor.ath.cx
------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
I doubt it was really 68K transistors. If you
multiply out the number of
transistors needed to implement the registers and counters, then add 50% for
the
ALU and double the whole thing for the control logic,
you'll probably have as
good a count.
Keep in mind that gate counts can be manipulated quite a bit by the marketing
guys. When you're building a gate, you can build a transistor with two
emitters. That functions as an AND gate. If you need a 3-input AND gate,
however, though it can be built with just another emitter the marketing guys
will tell you it's actually three AND gates. Transistor counts are probably
not
that important.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Chase" <bdc(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Mike Cheponis wrote:
>From Microprocessor Report, in chronological
order:
6502: 4K transistors 21 mm^2
Nice, now if I could only get enough info to implement one in TTL. :-)
Silly, yes, but it would be a fun project.
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
I thought this was an interesting coincidence... the 68K transistor
count I mean.
-brian.
9:51 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Yes, but there are similar constructs, e.g. multi-gate mosfets.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sipke de Wal" <sipke(a)wxs.nl>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
That's a valid assumption for TTL but not for
NMOS
PMOS! And CMOS actually needs roughly the double
amount of transistors
I've never heard of mos-multi-emitter-transistors
Sipke de Wal
------------------------------------------------------
http://xgistor.ath.cx
------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
as
I doubt it was really 68K transistors. If you
multiply out the number of
transistors needed to implement the registers and counters, then add 50% for
the
> ALU and double the whole thing for the control logic, you'll probably have
> good a count.
>
> Keep in mind that gate counts can be manipulated quite a bit by the
marketing
guys. When
you're building a gate, you can build a transistor with two
emitters. That functions as an AND gate. If you need a 3-input AND gate,
however, though it can be built with just another emitter the marketing guys
will tell you it's actually three AND gates. Transistor counts are probably
not
that important.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Chase" <bdc(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Mike Cheponis wrote:
>From Microprocessor Report, in chronological
order:
6502: 4K transistors 21 mm^2
Nice, now if I could only get enough info to implement one in TTL. :-)
Silly, yes, but it would be a fun project.
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
I thought this was an interesting coincidence... the 68K transistor
count I mean.
-brian.
7 May
7 May
9:54 p.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
At 10:48 AM 5/6/01 -0600, you wrote:
I doubt it was really 68K transistors. If you multiply
out the number of
transistors needed to implement the registers and counters, then add 50%
for the
ALU and double the whole thing for the control logic, you'll probably have as
good a count.
Don't forget that the 68K was microcoded; lots and lots of transistors were
used just for that. In fact, I recall reading that it was described as
"68000 potential transistors" because otherwise the transistor count would
have been dependent on the number of 1's or 0's in the microcode store.
I found transistor counts for a few other processors from a book I have on
my shelf:
MC6800 -- 6000, 57.5%
MC68000 -- 60000, 69%
IAPX 432 -- 150000, 84% (two chips)
MC68020 -- 192000, 70%
IAPX 386 -- 275000, 70.5%
(% is portion of chip dedicated to control logic [vs datapath])
From "The Architecture of Microprocessors", Fracois Anceau, p. 107
This book is in large part based on reverse engineering microprocessors
using a microphotographs (or is that photomicrographs?)
-----
Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net
8 May
8 May
5:09 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
A photomicrograph is a picture of the die, in this context. Looking at a map of
the device, in the form of an aerial photograph, which is what this is, gives a
general notion of the relative size of the structures on the die, and, in some
cases, allows for recognition of their functions. I wouldn't bet my paycheck on
guessing what a given structure is, just based on its apppearance on the typical
photomicrograph, however.
Intel used posters consisting of photomicrographs of their products, back in the
late '70's-early '80's in their marketing effort. Some of these were
sufficient, if one collected them all, to allow for claims of reverse
engineering some of their prominent and popular parts, e.g. the '186, and the
8751. It was certainly possible to recognize some structures, like EPROM cells,
RAM cells, etc, based on their geometry. I suppose one could have learned a
great deal with enough time and effort, along with a complete, layer-by-layer,
set of pictures. However, I rather imagine that folks smart enough to
reverse-engineer the devices from the pictures, probably could have done the job
without them.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Battle" <frustum(a)pacbell.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
At 10:48 AM 5/6/01 -0600, you wrote:
I doubt it was really 68K transistors. If you
multiply out the number of
transistors needed to implement the registers and counters, then add 50%
for the
ALU and double the whole thing for the control logic, you'll probably have as
good a count.
Don't forget that the 68K was microcoded; lots and lots of transistors were
used just for that. In fact, I recall reading that it was described as
"68000 potential transistors" because otherwise the transistor count would
have been dependent on the number of 1's or 0's in the microcode store.
I found transistor counts for a few other processors from a book I have on
my shelf:
MC6800 -- 6000, 57.5%
MC68000 -- 60000, 69%
IAPX 432 -- 150000, 84% (two chips)
MC68020 -- 192000, 70%
IAPX 386 -- 275000, 70.5%
(% is portion of chip dedicated to control logic [vs datapath])
From "The Architecture of Microprocessors", Fracois Anceau, p. 107
This book is in large part based on reverse engineering microprocessors
using a microphotographs (or is that photomicrographs?)
-----
Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net
6 May
6 May
7:14 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Real data is nice, but I find it odd that the 6502 shows up with so much more
die size when the transistor count matches the 6800 so closely. The Z80, and
6502 were both presumably built with more or less the same design rules, and, as
one might expect, the 6800 and 6502 should have approximately the same
transistor count, having approximately the same internal resources. Note how
the figure for the 8085 tracks the Z80 figure, scaled back for the fact it (the
8085) lacks the alternate register set, approximately. I don't trust the
indicated die-size, however, since, back in '76, when the 650x series was new,
it was reputed to have the smallest die size of any of the then-current 8-bit
CPU's. After all, that's how they (MOS Technology) bought their market share.
Everything seems to fit, with the exception of that die size figure in this
case.
The 8008 was a couple of generations earlier than the 8085, but the 8085, 6502,
and Z80 were all built in the same geometry. The 8080 and 6800 were both about
the same generation, hence also built in the same design rules and geometry.
Note that the 1802 die is bigger, being a CMOS device.
The die size for the 68K also seems to match what I remember of the die that was
glued to my datasheet at that sales pitch I mentioned in an earlier post. Keep
in mind, however, that the area was 1/4 that of the previous generation, as
there had been a halving of the drawn channel widths. While I believe that the
transistor count may have been more of a marketing ploy than a reliable count,
if you take into consideration the relatively large register size and count
contained in the 68K and combine that with the substantially smaller geometry in
which it was fabricated, it seems to match up with the majority of the remaining
figures.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cheponis" <mac(a)Wireless.Com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
From Microprocessor Report, in chronological order:
8008: 3.5K transistors 14 mm^2
6800: 4.1K transistors 16 mm^2
8080: 4.8K transistors 20 mm^2
1802: 5K transistors 27 mm^2
6502: 4K transistors 21 mm^2
Z80: 8.5K transistors 18 mm^2
8085: 6.5K transistors 20 mm^2
8086: 29K transistors 33 mm^2
8088: 29K transistors 33 mm^2
Z8001 17.5K transistors 39 mm^2
68000 68K transistors 44 mm^2
6809: 9K transistors 21 mm^2
I really hate to interrupt this group's speculation with actual data, but
I'm weird in that way.
-Mike
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Sipke de Wal wrote:
> Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 16:34:41 +0200
> From: Sipke de Wal <sipke(a)wxs.nl>
> Reply-To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
>
> I tend to trust the 4000 number more also........
>
> Especially since the source article that gives 9000 transistors
> for the 6502 has a few other flaws. most strikingly.....
>
> ...... naming the Z80 as the host of CP/M where that clearly should
> have been the 8080. That the Z80 is downward compatible is
> nice but the native CP/M assembler was an 8080 assembler not
> a Z80 assembler.
>
> Sipke de Wal
> ------------------------------------------------
> http://xgistor.ath.cx
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
>
>
> > While I don't know what the "real" numbers are, I'm inclined
to believe
this
(4000) number, at least relative to the others just
based on the internal
resources.
7:43 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Speaking of die size and # of transistors packed onto a chip ....
In a batch of other interesting stuff I received an odd looking camera
reduction system. Looks a good bit like a 1920's Photographers "View"
camera. Used 4" X 5" Ferroxoplates. It [unlike the 20's version] is
built entirely of metal [heavy --about 25 pounds]. It is supposed to
have been used to reduce chip drawings down to actual production die
size. No name anywhere .. almost looks to be lab or shop built. I've
posted a couple of pix at:
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipmain.JPG
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipart.JPG
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipback.JPG
The second picture is of the only exposed "plate" that came with the
system. Third pix showing the back and partial interior is interesting
in that the plate is held to the back by vacuum. A hose runs out the
back and the vacuum acts through tiny channels milled into the back of
the camera. Any thoughts or comments appreciated. NO APPRAISELS are
solicited!
Thanks, Craig
Richard Erlacher wrote:
Real data is nice, but I find it odd that the 6502 shows up with so much more
die size when the transistor count matches the 6800 so closely. The Z80, and
6502 were both presumably built with more or less the same design rules, and, as
one might expect, the 6800 and 6502 should have approximately the same
transistor count, having approximately the same internal resources. Note how
the figure for the 8085 tracks the Z80 figure, scaled back for the fact it (the
8085) lacks the alternate register set, approximately. I don't trust the
indicated die-size, however, since, back in '76, when the 650x series was new,
it was reputed to have the smallest die size of any of the then-current 8-bit
CPU's. After all, that's how they (MOS Technology) bought their market share.
Everything seems to fit, with the exception of that die size figure in this
case.
The 8008 was a couple of generations earlier than the 8085, but the 8085, 6502,
and Z80 were all built in the same geometry. The 8080 and 6800 were both about
the same generation, hence also built in the same design rules and geometry.
Note that the 1802 die is bigger, being a CMOS device.
The die size for the 68K also seems to match what I remember of the die that was
glued to my datasheet at that sales pitch I mentioned in an earlier post. Keep
in mind, however, that the area was 1/4 that of the previous generation, as
there had been a halving of the drawn channel widths. While I believe that the
transistor count may have been more of a marketing ploy than a reliable count,
if you take into consideration the relatively large register size and count
contained in the 68K and combine that with the substantially smaller geometry in
which it was fabricated, it seems to match up with the majority of the remaining
figures.
Dick
8 May
8 May
5:18 a.m.
New subject: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
While this photo equipment is interesting in its own right, it isn't of a
generation that is likely to have been used in the '70's generation
photolithography. The view cameras I had while touring Europe in the '60's (in
the Army) were made of precisely manufactured die-cast and machined aluminum
with brass or steel gears, etc. Those were for taking pictures of beautiful old
buildings and of landscapes, etc. The equippment used to produce integrated
circuits wasn't made of wood.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "ip500" <ip500(a)home.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: How many transistors in the 6502 processor?
Speaking of die size and # of transistors packed onto
a chip ....
In a batch of other interesting stuff I received an odd looking camera
reduction system. Looks a good bit like a 1920's Photographers "View"
camera. Used 4" X 5" Ferroxoplates. It [unlike the 20's version] is
built entirely of metal [heavy --about 25 pounds]. It is supposed to
have been used to reduce chip drawings down to actual production die
size. No name anywhere .. almost looks to be lab or shop built. I've
posted a couple of pix at:
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipmain.JPG
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipart.JPG
http://members.home.net/ip500/chipback.JPG
The second picture is of the only exposed "plate" that came with the
system. Third pix showing the back and partial interior is interesting
in that the plate is held to the back by vacuum. A hose runs out the
back and the vacuum acts through tiny channels milled into the back of
the camera. Any thoughts or comments appreciated. NO APPRAISELS are
solicited!
Thanks, Craig
Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> Real data is nice, but I find it odd that the 6502 shows up with so much
more
> die size when the transistor count matches the
6800 so closely. The Z80,
and
> 6502 were both presumably built with more or less
the same design rules,
and, as
> one might expect, the 6800 and 6502 should have
approximately the same
> transistor count, having approximately the same internal resources. Note
how
> the figure for the 8085 tracks the Z80 figure,
scaled back for the fact it
(the
> 8085) lacks the alternate register set,
approximately. I don't trust the
> indicated die-size, however, since, back in '76, when the 650x series was
new,
> it was reputed to have the smallest die size of
any of the then-current
8-bit
> CPU's. After all, that's how they (MOS
Technology) bought their market
share.
> Everything seems to fit, with the exception of
that die size figure in this
> case.
>
> The 8008 was a couple of generations earlier than the 8085, but the 8085,
6502,
> and Z80 were all built in the same geometry. The
8080 and 6800 were both
about
> the same generation, hence also built in the same
design rules and geometry.
> Note that the 1802 die is bigger, being a CMOS device.
>
> The die size for the 68K also seems to match what I remember of the die that
was
> glued to my datasheet at that sales pitch I
mentioned in an earlier post.
Keep
> in mind, however, that the area was 1/4 that of
the previous generation, as
> there had been a halving of the drawn channel widths. While I believe that
the
> transistor count may have been more of a
marketing ploy than a reliable
count,
> if you take into consideration the relatively
large register size and count
> contained in the 68K and combine that with the substantially smaller
geometry
in
> which it was fabricated, it seems to match up
with the majority of the
remaining
figures.
Dick
8477
days inactive
8483
days old
43 comments
25 participants
participants (25)
-
allain＠panix.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bdc＠world.std.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
dittman＠dittman.net -
edick＠idcomm.com -
emu＠ecubics.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
frustum＠pacbell.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
ip500＠home.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
jos.mar＠bluewin.ch -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
knightstalkerbob＠netscape.net -
mac＠Wireless.Com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
pechter＠bg-tc-ppp446.monmouth.com -
pechter＠bg-tc-ppp747.monmouth.com -
sipke＠wxs.nl -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu