> What I still confused about is am I right about the wires things? No, you are not right about the wires thing. In my other answer, one of your statements im

> What I still confused about is am I right about the wires things? No, you are not right about the wires thing. In my other answer, one of your statements implied you seem to think of wires and transistors as the same, but they are not. Wires transport voltages around between the transistors, the transistors switch on/off depending upon what voltages the wires transport to them. The combination of the wires transporting different voltages at different points in time, and the transistors switching on/off dependent upon the transported voltages, is what creates the basic building block of a CPU. > Anyway, if first method is doable, then in my CPU, I done the calculation without any Memory system lol. Is your real question here this one: "Why is the memory located in a separate box apart from the CPU"? Because if that is your real question, then there is a good explanation of why this is so. It is so because the best design of the circuits for the CPU portion is different from an engineering perspective than the best design for the circuits for the RAM portion. And due to restrictions on integrated circuit manufacturing, it is easier and cheaper to build the two components separate, using different integrated circuit techniques, and then connect them together via bus lines, than to build them all together in one single component. The circuit designs for the CPU center around fast operation often at the expense of additional energy consumption. The circuit designs for bulk memory (RAM) center around much lower energy consumption (often at the expense of some speed of operation) and very high density packing of storage cells. Attempting to mix both of these techniques on a single chip is possible, but much more expensive and difficult than building them independently on separate chips. But, also, there have been experimental CPU designs that attempt to do some of what you suggest, the (generally) external RAM cells are actually built on the CPU itself, right near where the data stored therein will be used by the CPU. So what you suggest has been done, it is just not the design that gained traction for our current IBM-PC architecure PC's. Also, one other item to consider. If you build a CPU and RAM on the same chip, then to offer different amounts of RAM in the market, you have to design and build different chips. But if you build the CPU separate from the RAM, you can change the amount of RAM in a system by adding/subtracting RAM modules (presuming the system was designed with plugs for adding/subtracting RAM modules) while only having to build one kind of CPU chip, and one kind of RAM module. Lower cost of production, much more market flexibility.