Talk:WDC 65C02

message: Why the change? In short: because <company name> <processor name>, where <company name> belongs to the originating company, is the de facto standard for microprocessor articles in WKP. Note that this also applies to processors which are/have been second-sourced (i.e., manufactured by one or more companies other than the originating one). --Wernher 14:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an error.  There was a 65C02 (and in fact a whole 65Cxx family) from MOS Technology (a.k.a. Commodore Semiconductor Group) in 1982, as shown in the MOS Technology 1982-1983 Data Catalog, a scaned copy of which is available from bitsavers.org: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/mosTechnology/_dataBooks/1982_MOS_Technology_Data_Catalog.pdf.  WDC was founded in 1978, according to their website, so I can't deduce which is the case: that MOS/Commodore licensed the 65C02 from WDC, vice versa, or the two companies developed CMOS implementations of the 6502 independently.  Regardless, the article excludes the Commodore product without any cited reference to support the only possible justification for this, that the Commodore 65C02 was a licensed second-source version of the WDC 65C02 (which later developed into the current 65C02S).  The article title needs to be changed back, or else a new article needs to be created with the title MOS Technology 65C02.  I don't think the separate articles are warranted.  173.59.13.98 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Update: I have examined the MOS Technology 65C02 (MPS65C02) datasheet from the 1982-1983 Data Catalog and closely compared it with the datasheet for the NMOS 6502 in the same book, and I found the two to be nearly identical, except for power supply current and clock speeds.  According to these datasheet The MOS Technology 65C02 has the exact same instruction set, pinout, feature list, and electrical characteristics as the NMOS 6502: it is practically identical except that it is implemented in CMOS instead of NMOS, so it uses much less power but is lmited to 1 MHz, whereas the NMOS version (as of 1982) was available in 1 MHz (no suffix), 2 MHz ("A" suffix), and 3 MHz ("B" suffix) versions.  This MPS65C02 is not covered at all by this article, nor am I aware of any other article that covers it.  For historical and legacy support purposes, it needs to be described on Wikipedia. 173.59.13.98 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change: "65C02 Microprocessor" --> "WDC 65C02" 

message: The datasheet's link on 65xx.com seems to be dead.
--Thomas, 4:02pm, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
: Fixed. --StuartBrady 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I've checked the datasheet for the G65SC02 and it seems the TSB and TRB instructions were not removed, and that only RMB, SMB, BBR and BBS were removed. I've updated the article accordingly. --StuartBrady 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G65SC02 

message: The power consumption is listed at 150uA, which I presume is supposed to mean 150 microamps. However, following the link for uA directs to nanoamps. A nanoamp would be written as nA, not uA. Shall I assume it's supposed to be microamps? What is the source on this anyway?
Mofoburrell (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nanoamps (i.e. less than one microamp) would not be reasonably plausible for any microprocessor, even the most efficient CMOS design implementing the simplest architecture. 173.59.13.98 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power consumption 

message: I suggest merging the stubby article W65C02S into the WDC 65C02 article.
The "W65C02S" is a kind of "WDC 65C02", and I think the similarities and minor differences between all the kinds of "WDC 65C02" can easily be covered in this one article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The given frequencies for the Apple II models are slightly incorrect. They don't run at 1.023 MHz but at 1.020484... MHz, i.e. 65 machine cycles per 228 cycles of the NTSC color carrier frequency. I'd correct it myself if the article wasn't locked. -- 77.187.133.27 (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple II frequencies are wrong 

message: Is this microprocessor still in use?  I am not technically minded enough to know, but I ran into this circuit from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count
It shows that it has had an updated manufacturing process in 2009 using the 0.22 µm process.  Thus it appears that it is still being manufactured - but the "Notable uses" section only lists ancient products such as the Apple II.  Does anybody know what this is still being used for?  And is it still used in large quantities?  Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this microprocessor still in use??? 

message: Atari was the first, for many years the ONLY and by far the LARGEST (by number of units sold) user of 65C02 processors, dwarfing the combined sales of all the other systems mentioned here COMBINED.
Abkedefghi (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Abkedefghi Can you post some sales figures to substantiate that statement, without the SHOUTING please. ToaneeM (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computers -- Atari 400/800/600XL/800XL/1200/XEGS missing -- how did THAT happen? 

message: This section needs some attention.  There is at least one incorrect statement in it concerning STP, and the description of how the WAI instruction behaves following an SEI instruction is not particularly understandable.  It might be worth looking at the 6502 interrupts article (can't recall the exact title), which has some discussion about STP and WAI.
216.152.18.132 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low power modes 

message: The 6502 article talks about the 65C02 in its opening text. It claims that the 65C02/65xx family continues to be widely used, with "with estimated production volumes in the hundreds of millions".
The linked reference is to the Western Design Centre website. The actual paragraph there says:
"...Annual volumes in the hundreds (100's) of millions of units keep adding in a significant way to the estimated shipped volumes of five (5) to ten (10) billion units. With 200MHz+ 8-bit W65C02S and 100MHz+ 8/16-bit W65C816S processors coming on line in ASIC and FPGA forms, we see these annual volumes continuing for a long, long time. The 65xx brand is probably the only processor family that has remained loyal to its ISA over the last 33 years."
The last 33 years since 1975, start of the '65xx brand', means this was written in 2008, making it 14 years out of date.
That website redirects you to a newer WDC website, which contains a revised statement:
"Through the last 30+ years as one of the most popular microprocessor architectures of all time the 65xx brand is estimated to have over six billion embedded 65xx processors shipped and is growing by hundreds of millions of units per year, provided by WDC and its licensees."
The relevant text on that page looks like a rehash of the original site's text. The '30+ years' looks like a rehash of the '33 years', aimed to make it timeless so they don't have to worry about changing the website. So it's also not proven to be current and is likely out of date.
All in all, there needs to be better evidence that the 65C02/65xx family sells these quantities per annum, either in parts or as licenced IP. Or the statement's wrong and should be removed - not just removing the quantities but also the claim of popularity and any volumes. ToaneeM (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales "in the 100's of millions" out of date 

message: The article mentions a very specific bug that was introduced into the 65C02 that wasn't present in the original NMOS version. Does that bug remain in samples manufactured today or was it fixed at some point? I've added a Citation Needed tag because if the bug persists it will be documented somewhere. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indexing bug