4 ms·

Noncoml, did you really read the manual? The 4004 is unrelated to the x86-64. Perhaps you are confusing it with the 8008 which is related to the 8080 which is

Noncoml, did you really read the manual? The 4004 is unrelated to the x86-64. Perhaps you are confusing it with the 8008 which is related to the 8080 which is related to the 8086 which is related to the 80286, 80386, 80486, and so forth.

cr0sh 9y ago
Poor, neglected 80186, nobody ever remembers it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80186 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80186
- kjs3 9y ago
  The 80186 is an 8086 with integrated peripherals. It's not a distinct architecture.
andars 9y ago
It is a bit excessive to say that it is unrelated. Many of the techniques and methologies created for the 4004 were instrumental in the development the 8008. Also, the 4004, 8008, and 8080 were all designed by more or less the same people (esp. Faggin).
noncoml 9y ago
Hmm, I don't know. Especially the way the segregate RAM into banks reminds me a lot of the x86 segments with their direct and indirect addressing modes. Also a lot of instructions have similar names: CLC You are right, it is not a true ancestor, but ready through the manual, it did seem to me that it was designed by the same people. To be honest I haven't dig into other CPU families, so maybe these were pretty common. But I can definitely see 4004 DNA in x86.
- anyfoo 9y ago
  The 4004 is so weird that it stands in a class of its own, for me. I'm not sure how much of its instruction set came from Busicom, the company that the 4004 was made for, instead of from Intel engineers.
- kens 9y ago
  The CLC - clear carry - instruction predates the 4004. The PDP-11 for instance used it. I think you're seeing patterns that aren't really there. One thing the 4004 and 8008 do have in common is a similar floor plan for the chips. They both have the ALU on the left, data bus along the top, instruction decoding in the middle, registers on the right, and on-chip stack on the right. Other processors of that era (e.g. 6800, 6502, 8080) have very different layouts so it's not just coincidence. Texas Instruments produced the TMC 1795, a chip equivalent to the 8008 (before the 8008), and it also has a completely different layout. If you look lower-level, at e.g. the ALU implementation or the register implementation or the pin drivers, there's less similarity. I would have expected they would essentially cut-and-paste some of these low-level pieces, but they are more different than I would expect.

cr0sh 9y ago

Poor, neglected 80186, nobody ever remembers it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80186 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80186

kjs3 9y ago
The 80186 is an 8086 with integrated peripherals. It's not a distinct architecture.

andars 9y ago

It is a bit excessive to say that it is unrelated. Many of the techniques and methologies created for the 4004 were instrumental in the development the 8008. Also, the 4004, 8008, and 8080 were all designed by more or less the same people (esp. Faggin).

noncoml 9y ago

Hmm, I don't know. Especially the way the segregate RAM into banks reminds me a lot of the x86 segments with their direct and indirect addressing modes. Also a lot of instructions have similar names: CLC You are right, it is not a true ancestor, but ready through the manual, it did seem to me that it was designed by the same people. To be honest I haven't dig into other CPU families, so maybe these were pretty common. But I can definitely see 4004 DNA in x86.

anyfoo 9y ago
The 4004 is so weird that it stands in a class of its own, for me. I'm not sure how much of its instruction set came from Busicom, the company that the 4004 was made for, instead of from Intel engineers.
kens 9y ago
The CLC - clear carry - instruction predates the 4004. The PDP-11 for instance used it. I think you're seeing patterns that aren't really there. One thing the 4004 and 8008 do have in common is a similar floor plan for the chips. They both have the ALU on the left, data bus along the top, instruction decoding in the middle, registers on the right, and on-chip stack on the right. Other processors of that era (e.g. 6800, 6502, 8080) have very different layouts so it's not just coincidence. Texas Instruments produced the TMC 1795, a chip equivalent to the 8008 (before the 8008), and it also has a completely different layout. If you look lower-level, at e.g. the ALU implementation or the register implementation or the pin drivers, there's less similarity. I would have expected they would essentially cut-and-paste some of these low-level pieces, but they are more different than I would expect.