3 ms·
I think the distinction then was more like non-existent. Most chips then didn't have on-board peripherals (for some value of "then"), so a CPU-intended-to-be-a
by AnimalMuppet 3y ago
I think the distinction then was more like non-existent. Most chips then didn't have on-board peripherals (for some value of "then"), so a CPU-intended-to-be-a-microcontroller and a CPU-intended-to-be-a-microprocessor looked very similar.
Now we've added things to microcontrollers (serial ports, GPIO pins, timers, etc.) and other things to microprocessors (FPUs and memory managers). But back in the day, was a Z80 a microcontroller or a microprocessor? Yes.
- JKCalhoun 3y agoI have always assumed the distinction was whether it had its own on-board memory or talked over the bus to external memory. That's a kind of who-cares thing in my mind.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoOh. Hmm. Yes, I could see that. [Edit: "Memory" including both RAM and ROM. Microprocessors usually didn't have code - even boot code - in internal ROM.]