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_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <cctalk_at_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_at_classiccmp.org
> http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk
>
>
Received on Wed May 15 2002 - 18:56:43 BST