"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" wrote:
>
> > > The 4004 was once rumored to have been named that because it had the
> > > equivalent of 4004 transistors.
> > > THAT is what probably gave rise to the 68000 silliness.
> > > It's MUCH more impressive what was done with only 486!
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Andreas Freiherr wrote:
> > Shoudn't that read "80486"?
> only if we stick with intel!
>
> That's what was so impressive about the Cyrix 486SLC, was that it DIDN'T
> have the other 80,000! 'course it always seemed more like a fast 80386 to
> me.
> And the K6 does a really nice job with 6144!
> and how about the Z80, V20, etc.?
What about the PDP-1 ... 18 bits on 1 transitor. :)
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
Received on Wed May 15 2002 - 12:41:05 BST