>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_at_wxs.nl>
> Reply-To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
> To: classiccmp_at_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_at_idcomm.com>
> To: <classiccmp_at_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.
> >
>
>
>
Received on Sat May 05 2001 - 12:19:42 BST