This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
OK, there's some weirdness going on here, in terms of both missing and contradictory information.
1/ The chip is listed as having both "12 bit", "13 bit" and "8 kilobyte" address ranges. For a chip with a 4-bit word length / data bus width, that latter one is equal to 14 bits, not 13, as 8192 bytes = 16384 nibbles. So, which is it? If it's 12-bit like the 4004, then that's only a total of 2KB address space (4k words). 13-bit would be 4KB / 8k-nibble. 14-bit seems like a realistic possibility, because that would then match the 8008 and maybe explain its rather odd choice of address width.
2/ Is it multiplexed or separate? The much greater number of pins vs the 4004 suggests that, much like the 8080 vs 8008, the data and address buses were partially or wholly demultiplexed in the 4040 (ie instead of issuing a string of 3 nibbles for the address then reading or writing the actual data as a fourth, the address is asserted as a single 12 to 14 bit value, or even two 6 or 7 bit ones, and the data is either then read/written sequentially via four of those pins, or transfers more-or-less simultaneously over 4 separate pins), which would produce a significant speed boost when reading/writing memory or IO devices... as well as avoiding the introduction of additional delays if the address space is actually greater than 12 bits. But there's no explicit mention of it and the extra pins could well be spoken for by other functions not clearly defined in the article.
Even the functional diagram doesn't make it plain; there's no appearance of dedicated address lines anywhere in the image, but neither are the data lines marked as "address/data" as would be the case for the 4004, 8008, 8085, 8086, 8088 etc... 146.199.0.170 ( talk) 13:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Only 60k instructions per second. It means 4040 took 15μs compared to the 10μs taken by 4004 to execute a singular machine instruction. Am I missing something? Anwar ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The big thing lacking from most of these microprocessor articles is the pricing. Initial pricing at the time of release is the absolute must. Usually these prices varied according to the quantity ordered. Also, if the info is available it would be good to see how the price changed through the years. JettaMann ( talk) 14:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I am currently in the possession of a (now EXTREMELY rare) C4040 CPU and I would like to contribute by uploading a home-made picture of it. Unfortunately the legal pages look like a minefield. Can anyone help me out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiederikH ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to get too excited about. If you don't care if other people will make money off your picture or take credit for it, just release it into the public domain. If you do but you want others to be able to use it, there's things like GNU public license (other people can make money but have to credit and provide source) and the Creative Commons license (you can choose if people can make money, derive works (edit your stuff and reissue)). Personally I couldn't care less, so I just PD most my stuff. Not really a minefield; rather a field full of different fruits to suit your taste. Paul Moir ( talk) 05:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the C4040 is made out of ceramic, but not the D4040, right?
-- PantheraLeo1359531 ( talk) 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
OK, there's some weirdness going on here, in terms of both missing and contradictory information.
1/ The chip is listed as having both "12 bit", "13 bit" and "8 kilobyte" address ranges. For a chip with a 4-bit word length / data bus width, that latter one is equal to 14 bits, not 13, as 8192 bytes = 16384 nibbles. So, which is it? If it's 12-bit like the 4004, then that's only a total of 2KB address space (4k words). 13-bit would be 4KB / 8k-nibble. 14-bit seems like a realistic possibility, because that would then match the 8008 and maybe explain its rather odd choice of address width.
2/ Is it multiplexed or separate? The much greater number of pins vs the 4004 suggests that, much like the 8080 vs 8008, the data and address buses were partially or wholly demultiplexed in the 4040 (ie instead of issuing a string of 3 nibbles for the address then reading or writing the actual data as a fourth, the address is asserted as a single 12 to 14 bit value, or even two 6 or 7 bit ones, and the data is either then read/written sequentially via four of those pins, or transfers more-or-less simultaneously over 4 separate pins), which would produce a significant speed boost when reading/writing memory or IO devices... as well as avoiding the introduction of additional delays if the address space is actually greater than 12 bits. But there's no explicit mention of it and the extra pins could well be spoken for by other functions not clearly defined in the article.
Even the functional diagram doesn't make it plain; there's no appearance of dedicated address lines anywhere in the image, but neither are the data lines marked as "address/data" as would be the case for the 4004, 8008, 8085, 8086, 8088 etc... 146.199.0.170 ( talk) 13:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Only 60k instructions per second. It means 4040 took 15μs compared to the 10μs taken by 4004 to execute a singular machine instruction. Am I missing something? Anwar ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The big thing lacking from most of these microprocessor articles is the pricing. Initial pricing at the time of release is the absolute must. Usually these prices varied according to the quantity ordered. Also, if the info is available it would be good to see how the price changed through the years. JettaMann ( talk) 14:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I am currently in the possession of a (now EXTREMELY rare) C4040 CPU and I would like to contribute by uploading a home-made picture of it. Unfortunately the legal pages look like a minefield. Can anyone help me out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiederikH ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to get too excited about. If you don't care if other people will make money off your picture or take credit for it, just release it into the public domain. If you do but you want others to be able to use it, there's things like GNU public license (other people can make money but have to credit and provide source) and the Creative Commons license (you can choose if people can make money, derive works (edit your stuff and reissue)). Personally I couldn't care less, so I just PD most my stuff. Not really a minefield; rather a field full of different fruits to suit your taste. Paul Moir ( talk) 05:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the C4040 is made out of ceramic, but not the D4040, right?
-- PantheraLeo1359531 ( talk) 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)