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 microp

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.