Talk:Intel 8008

message: I was pretty sure that the base clock for the 8008 was 1 MHz, and 1.6 MHz for the 8008-1.  Unfortunately, my original documentation is in a packing case somewhere in the shed.  Can anybody confirm?
In any case, just stating the clock is misleading.  The fastest instructions on the 8008 took 20μs, and the slowest were 44μs.  I'm pretty sure that this was the number of clock cycles.  Groogle (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess (I'm 42) is that your clock frequency numbers are the Ø1 and Ø2 two-phase clock supplied to the 8008, while the numbers in the article are the SYNC clock output from the 8008. Still, I'm not sure how 5T and 11T respectively (from the data sheet) would end up as 20 and 44 [some unit], as this is a factor of four, not two as one would have expected. Perhaps your "development system" used a single-phase clock at twice the frequency in order to generate the two-phase clock for the 8008 (which is then in turn divided by 2 into T-states by the 8008)? That would explain it. HenkeB (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 0.5 MHz?

message: Was 8008 the first microprocessor ever to breach the microsecond barrier for execution of a singular machine instruction?Anwar (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction execution time

message: The article says:
The subsequent Intel 8080 and 8085 CPUs were also heavily based on the same basic design; even the x86 architecture (originally a non-strict extension of the 8085) loosely resembles the original Datapoint 2200 design (every instruction of the 8008's instruction set has a direct equivalent in the 8080's larger instruction set and Intel Core 2's even larger instruction set, although the opcode values are different in all three).
However, the 8008 had conditional call instructionshttp://home.germany.net/nils.eilers/8008/, but x86 does nothttp://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253666.pdf. Can someone familiar with the 8008, 8080, and 8086 correct this sentence?
140.180.175.90 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity with x86 

message: used a video screen shaped to be the same aspect ratio as the IBM 029 punched card terminal.
Interesting, because neither the 029 nor the follow-on 129 had a screen at all. Honest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggieL (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Datapoint screen like IBM 029? 

message: The article contains "with their first sale to General Mills on May 25, 1970". To my understanding, the first customer was actually "Pillsbury Foods" as mentioned in the Datapoint 2200 article. This was related to me by Jonathan Schmidt, Datapoint's VP of R&D.
As I was told, the original intent of the 8008/2200 processor was as a terminal emulator, not a general purpose computer. I.E. it was to be used to perform communication protocol handling. That way, the same machine could be used to communicate with IBM, DEC, Univac, GE, Burroughs, etc. computers which used different control codes.
Pilsbury, when they got their first machines, immediately started programming them as personal business computers. Seeing this, Datapoint decided to rewrite their history and say that was their intent all along. They then proceeded to create related software a DOS, BASIC, DATABUS, etc.
131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's first? General Mills or Pillsbury Foods 

message: I wrote a small free open-source Intel 8008 emulator and assembler to celebrate its 40th anniversay! :) 79.227.171.133 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulator / Assembler 

message: This Intel 8008 article mentions T-states.
The Zilog Z80 article mentions T-cycles.
What are T-states? Are T-cycles the same thing, and if not, what are they?
Are T-cycles something only relevant to the Zilog Z80, and T-states only relevant to the Intel 8008,
or are they something relevant to many different CPU designs and so should be mentioned and defined in the CPU design article?
--DavidCary (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-cycles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Intel 8008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090904175848/http://www.intel.com:80/museum/archives/history_docs/Moore.htm to http://www.intel.com/museum/archives/history_docs/Moore.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has a link to IBM Basic assembly language, which is an assembler for IBM S/360 systems.  I don't see why one would put such an assembler into ROM for an 8008 system. Gah4 (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up the citation on that one, and that source itself linked to a page at the Digibarn. The details turn out to be quite peculiar, but unfortunately just a little vague. It sounds like the ROM of the Sacramento State 8008 system was written to interpret already assembled programs written in IBM Basic Assembly Language, because that was the language used by Sacramento State for their students' system-software programming assignments, and they already had a large collection of such student-written programs. Also, the guy working on the 8008 project had previously helped to create ROM-based implementations of various minicomputers, so the task was something he was already used to. What I'm not quite clear on is whether the ROM of this 8008 system had an interpreter of binary System/360 instructions or of human-readable BAL code; the former sounds much more plausible. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IBM Basic assembly language]] 

message: The image caption in the article reads "An Intel C8008-1 processor variant with purple ceramic, a gold heat spreader, and gold pins."
That is not a "heat spreader", that is just the lid of the ceramic DIP package. In contrast to much later ceramic packages as the PGA package used for the 80386 processor, ceramic DIP packages were assembled from the top, that is, the silicon chip is glued inside the package's cavity, the bonding wires are attached and —-after a functional test—- the lid is soldered on the package. That's all done from the top; there's air (or maybe an inertial gas) between the chip and the lid, thus no thermal coupling, not improving any heat transfer.
On the '386 in it's PGA package things were slightly changed, the cavity in which the chip is glued faces the bottom, thus the lid does too, but still no heat spreader.
A heat spreader was introduced with the original "pentium" processor, where there's a lid on the bottom and a thick metal plate on the top. This is thermically coupled to the chip and hence a true "heat spreader".
But the lid on this 8008 ceramic package is not a heat spreader.
--93.209.94.35 (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'll correct this. Drahtlos (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Caption 

message: I'm a big fan of the Datapoint 2200, but the current lead section spends more time talking about CTC than the 8008 chip. I think it needs some rewriting to satisfy WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. For instance, CTC designed the architecture; they did not design the chip. KenShirriff (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading this comment today, I found that the lead still focused too much on historical details regarding CTC. For example, the lead focused too much on an early failure and did not address any successes or legacy at all; for example, the 8088's influence on x86 architecture. I edited the lead with an eye to removing unnecessary detail, but am hoping that others can take the next step and provide more neutral details for our general readership. And looking past the lead, the History section definitely does not need to include so many details about CTC history. CTC has its own article where those details belong, and I'm going take a first stab at editing the History section here accordingly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section too focused on CTC