9 ms·

Noyce and the Microprocessor

27 points by klelatti 4y ago

rwmj 4y ago
If you're interested in this subject definitely watch this 1978 documentary: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x64ng4h https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x64ng4h Robert Noyce appears about 7 minutes in, and I think it may be in that very office shown in this article.
- klelatti 4y ago
  This is the program which IIRC led to the BBC Computer literacy program and in turn Acorn and then Arm. Noyce is looking at a picture of the 8080 I think.
omar0226 4y ago
I really enjoyed "Silicon" [1] by Federico Faggin. Besides telling his own version of the history of the microprocessor he also shares his other great passion: the study of consciousness [1] https://amzn.com/dp/1949003418 https://amzn.com/dp/1949003418
adrian_b 4y ago
The official history of the Intel company claims that 4004 (in 1971) was the first "microprocessor". The word "microprocessor" is typically used to mean "monolithic processor" a.k.a. "monolithic CPU", where "processor" a.k.a. "CPU" is a traditional term for a component of a general-purpose programmable computer, and "monolithic" means that the CPU is implemented in a single semiconductor chip. Intel 4004 had nothing to do with general-purpose programmable computers. It was a chip used for making desktop calculators with fixed functions. Its architecture had nothing in common with the following microprocessors, from Intel and from other companies. So I do not agree with Intel's claim. In my opinion, it is correct to consider that Intel 8008 from 1972 is the first microprocessor. Intel 8008, which implemented the architecture of the Datapoint 2200, was indeed a CPU for a general-purpose programmable computer. The following mainline Intel processors, i.e. 8080, 8085, 8086 and so on, had ISA's derived from that of Intel 8008, and even the latest AMD Zen 4 and Intel Raptor Lake still include some derivatives of most of the 8008 instructions in their ISA's, for backward compatibility reasons. The only reason why Intel 4004 has a place in the history of microprocessors is that this project has provided an opportunity for a team of Intel engineers to learn how to design complex digital integrated circuits in MOS technology. Previously, Intel was a memory company. The logic design of memories was far simpler than the design of a CPU. Had Intel started directly with a general-purpose CPU, they would have needed much more time to discover how to design one. After the experience with designing the Intel 4004, the Intel engineers have conceived a methodology of how to design complex logic circuits using their PMOS process, which they have then successfully used to design the Intel 8008. If Intel 4004 would be considered as a processor, because it was also able to execute arithmetic operations, then it would not be clear where a line should be drawn. By that argument, why not also consider a monolithic ALU, like Texas Instruments 74181, as being a microprocessor.
- dboreham 4y ago
  > Intel 8008 from 1972 is the first microprocessor First microprocessor made by Intel. https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-microprocessor-f-14/ https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-micr... http://spingalhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/microprocessor-history-foundations-in.html http://spingalhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/microprocessor-hi...
  - trasz 4y ago
    The F-14 CADC thingy wasn’t a microprocessor though - it was a multi-chip solution. I’m also not quite sure if it would qualify even if it were a proper microprocessor - because it was classified it didn’t contribute anything to the state of the art. Finally - the marketing around CADC is weird and, frankly, quite dishonest. The website set up to promote it claims 4004 wasn’t really a single chip, and makes dubious claims about CADC performance capabilities, ignoring the fact that (if I’m reading https://firstmicroprocessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ap1-26-97.pdf https://firstmicroprocessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/a... correctly) it was serial, every instruction taking 20 clocks at ~300kHz. EDIT: After spending some more time on that PDF... Wow, this was a curious beast. First of all, looking from our current perspective, it was an asymmetric multiprocessor: there were three units, each consisting of a number of chips; one for multiply, one for divide, and one for logic. Each of them had separate RAM and ROM (128 instructions each); each had a different "instruction format"; finally each had a separate program counter. The instructions looked more like microcode than normal machine code, eg there were no registers, and instructions manually toggled specific logic signals to communicate with others. Same for jumps: you'd toggle the logic line to reset the counter that was part of the instruction ROM. There was no assembler either. Thus, I'd argue not only was F-14 CADC not a microprocessor, it wasn't a CPU at all. It was a fixed-purpose computer, bit like Norden bombsight but implemented in silicon.
    - djmips 4y ago
      Being unknown to you doesn't disqualify something from being recognized as a first. Plenty of unknown inventors and scientists have been recognized as pioneers much later when their work was unearthed and made known.
klelatti 4y ago
Hi everyone, author here. Didn't expect to be on the front page of HN! I've long been fascinated by the early days of the microprocessor. A lot has been written about the 4004 but it's always seemed to me that Bob Noyce doesn't get enough credit. He's always there in the background making things happen. I'm planning to write a series of short posts on related topics - some more technical in nature - others less so. The 4005, 8008 and competing architectures of the time will be first up. Any ideas and feedback very welcome. PS It's on Substack as it the only tool that has managed to cure my procrastination.
amelius 4y ago
> Why the inventor of the silicon chip deserves more credit for the microprocessor The inventor of the diode deserves more credit for the transistor
djmips 4y ago
Noyce is the headline but Faggin is the story.
- klelatti 4y ago
  Very largely agree. Faggin made it all happen. Just that Noyce had an important role.

27 points by klelatti 4y ago

rwmj 4y ago

If you're interested in this subject definitely watch this 1978 documentary: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x64ng4h https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x64ng4h Robert Noyce appears about 7 minutes in, and I think it may be in that very office shown in this article.

klelatti 4y ago
This is the program which IIRC led to the BBC Computer literacy program and in turn Acorn and then Arm. Noyce is looking at a picture of the 8080 I think.

omar0226 4y ago

I really enjoyed "Silicon" [1] by Federico Faggin. Besides telling his own version of the history of the microprocessor he also shares his other great passion: the study of consciousness [1] https://amzn.com/dp/1949003418 https://amzn.com/dp/1949003418

adrian_b 4y ago

The official history of the Intel company claims that 4004 (in 1971) was the first "microprocessor". The word "microprocessor" is typically used to mean "monolithic processor" a.k.a. "monolithic CPU", where "processor" a.k.a. "CPU" is a traditional term for a component of a general-purpose programmable computer, and "monolithic" means that the CPU is implemented in a single semiconductor chip. Intel 4004 had nothing to do with general-purpose programmable computers. It was a chip used for making desktop calculators with fixed functions. Its architecture had nothing in common with the following microprocessors, from Intel and from other companies. So I do not agree with Intel's claim. In my opinion, it is correct to consider that Intel 8008 from 1972 is the first microprocessor. Intel 8008, which implemented the architecture of the Datapoint 2200, was indeed a CPU for a general-purpose programmable computer. The following mainline Intel processors, i.e. 8080, 8085, 8086 and so on, had ISA's derived from that of Intel 8008, and even the latest AMD Zen 4 and Intel Raptor Lake still include some derivatives of most of the 8008 instructions in their ISA's, for backward compatibility reasons. The only reason why Intel 4004 has a place in the history of microprocessors is that this project has provided an opportunity for a team of Intel engineers to learn how to design complex digital integrated circuits in MOS technology. Previously, Intel was a memory company. The logic design of memories was far simpler than the design of a CPU. Had Intel started directly with a general-purpose CPU, they would have needed much more time to discover how to design one. After the experience with designing the Intel 4004, the Intel engineers have conceived a methodology of how to design complex logic circuits using their PMOS process, which they have then successfully used to design the Intel 8008. If Intel 4004 would be considered as a processor, because it was also able to execute arithmetic operations, then it would not be clear where a line should be drawn. By that argument, why not also consider a monolithic ALU, like Texas Instruments 74181, as being a microprocessor.

dboreham 4y ago
> Intel 8008 from 1972 is the first microprocessor First microprocessor made by Intel. https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-microprocessor-f-14/ https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-micr... http://spingalhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/microprocessor-history-foundations-in.html http://spingalhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/microprocessor-hi...
- trasz 4y ago
  The F-14 CADC thingy wasn’t a microprocessor though - it was a multi-chip solution. I’m also not quite sure if it would qualify even if it were a proper microprocessor - because it was classified it didn’t contribute anything to the state of the art. Finally - the marketing around CADC is weird and, frankly, quite dishonest. The website set up to promote it claims 4004 wasn’t really a single chip, and makes dubious claims about CADC performance capabilities, ignoring the fact that (if I’m reading https://firstmicroprocessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ap1-26-97.pdf https://firstmicroprocessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/a... correctly) it was serial, every instruction taking 20 clocks at ~300kHz. EDIT: After spending some more time on that PDF... Wow, this was a curious beast. First of all, looking from our current perspective, it was an asymmetric multiprocessor: there were three units, each consisting of a number of chips; one for multiply, one for divide, and one for logic. Each of them had separate RAM and ROM (128 instructions each); each had a different "instruction format"; finally each had a separate program counter. The instructions looked more like microcode than normal machine code, eg there were no registers, and instructions manually toggled specific logic signals to communicate with others. Same for jumps: you'd toggle the logic line to reset the counter that was part of the instruction ROM. There was no assembler either. Thus, I'd argue not only was F-14 CADC not a microprocessor, it wasn't a CPU at all. It was a fixed-purpose computer, bit like Norden bombsight but implemented in silicon.
  - djmips 4y ago
    Being unknown to you doesn't disqualify something from being recognized as a first. Plenty of unknown inventors and scientists have been recognized as pioneers much later when their work was unearthed and made known.

klelatti 4y ago

Hi everyone, author here. Didn't expect to be on the front page of HN! I've long been fascinated by the early days of the microprocessor. A lot has been written about the 4004 but it's always seemed to me that Bob Noyce doesn't get enough credit. He's always there in the background making things happen. I'm planning to write a series of short posts on related topics - some more technical in nature - others less so. The 4005, 8008 and competing architectures of the time will be first up. Any ideas and feedback very welcome. PS It's on Substack as it the only tool that has managed to cure my procrastination.

amelius 4y ago

> Why the inventor of the silicon chip deserves more credit for the microprocessor The inventor of the diode deserves more credit for the transistor

djmips 4y ago

Noyce is the headline but Faggin is the story.

klelatti 4y ago
Very largely agree. Faggin made it all happen. Just that Noyce had an important role.