Talk:Microprocessor

message: Two concerns: Firstly, only the history of 64-bit microprocessors for personal computers is covered. Secondly, coverage of multicore microprocessors is limited to "mass-market" designs. Is there any reason why the coverage should not be extended to all microprocessors? I am willing to make an effort. Rilak (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to me that "64-bit designs for personal computers" is actually the shortest history section, although it is in some sense the culmination of some earlier threads.  And then of course there is History of general purpose CPUs.  Certainly there are parts of the article that could use work, but I'm not sure that I understand your particular concern. — Aluvus t/c 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  But History of general purpose CPUs does not cover 64-bit microprocessors. It does not seem to present the history organized in n bits. It doesn't cover multicore microprocessors either, it makes a mention of them, but no dates or examples are given. This article could link to 64-bit and Multicore, respectively, where there are more complete histories, but then, what is the point of the selectively covering certain parts of history? Why have a section titled "64-bit designs in personal computers"? All other sections do not have this restriction and 64-bit microprocessors have been around in computers and consumer electronics such as game consoles for some time, for example. Perhaps brief summaries of the important events and a link to each of the subject's articles should replace the present sections? Rilak (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of microprocessors 

message: There seems to be a bit of conflict between fans of 8-bit chips and fans of 32-bit chips.
Honestly, both sides seem biased to me, but I think it makes an encyclopedia article better to describe all the major viewpoints, even when some of them are biased.
Two areas that I think deserve a few more words in this article: energy and noise.
I've been able to add both points of view on energy:
* I added the Saether and Fredriksen reference. If I'm reading it correctly, it unambiguously says that 8-bit processors have several advantages over 32-bit processors, including less energy and lower noise.
* I added other references that say that it is "not true" that 8-bit processors use less energy than 32-bit processors.
Alas, those other references don't seem to mention noise or the other issues brought up by Saether and Fredriksen.
So does pretty much everyone agree that 8-bit processors (when fabbed at the same technology level) produce less noise than 32-bit processors?
Or is there a reliable source we can reference that has some other point of view, that we should mention in this article?
--DavidCary (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Those references were deleted in a later edit. --DavidCary (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 bit vs 32 bit 

message: I am going to link this here. I made an proposal for a new Project based on microprocessors. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiChips
Bobherry Talk Edits  01:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: I have additional matter about this Nadimpalli bhargav (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  About this 

message: Gilbert Hyatt actually had tons and tons of patent applications pertaining to the microprocessor, and his intellectual property strategy seems to have influenced processor engineering and law alike. According to several sources, a USPTO director wanted to have his blocked or deprioritized. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilbert Hyatt's Patent Battles on Microprocessors 

message: Integration of 4 CD4057 Accumulator/ALU and array of CD40108 triple port Ram and microsequencer. Orthogonal instruction set. TaylorLeem (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCA CDP1802