Talk:Central processing unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Central processing unit is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Top-importance).
Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class)
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Link inappropriate?[edit]

The external link to, a documentary website about the history of microprocessors, has been removed for being "inappropriate". In an article about Central Processing Unit - isn't this link helpful and therefor appropriate? What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morkork (talkcontribs) .

It was removed partially because you were adding it to several articles without first discussing its inclusion. That is generally viewed as WP:SPAM, especially if you have something to do with the website you are adding. I'd say that link may be appropriate for microprocessor (ask on the talk page), but not this article. -- mattb @ 2006-11-08T01:25Z

Why "Central"?[edit]

I mention this as a suggestion to the article's regular editors. The term "central" isn't explained. Its has its origin in a distinction between the "central" and the "peripheral" parts of a computer. for a source see Computer structures (Daniel P. Siewiorek, C. Gordon Bell, Allen Newell) google books. In 2011 we don't refer to a SATA controller as a "peripheral processing unit" but we still have "central processing unit" as a legacy term. patsw (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not only a legacy term, as it is still distinguished from other processors such as a Graphics processing unit. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It was a legacy term, until graphics chips got more complex and expensive, and morphed into processing units. patsw (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Order code processor to History of general purpose CPUs[edit]

same topic, alternative name Widefox; talk 14:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • oppose Whilst there's an argument that both apply to the same topic, the contexts are very different. One is the enormously widespread term for this common item, the other an obsolete term used by one manufacturer, a long time ago.
Obviously CPU is the prime article. Order code processor also meets WP:N and can stay (please be aware of WP:RECENTISM). Merging OCP into CPU would fail WP:UNDUE – although a historically notable term, it has zero relevance today and doesn't warrant even a footnote in the main article on a space-valuable high-profile computing vital article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
They appear to be synonyms (please correct me if I'm wrong) so it's to prevent a wp:povfork / wp:dictdef, with the CPU article covers this period (60s) already, so I'm struggling to see that argument. The RECENTISM would be to dismiss old stuff like this. Anyhow, it is about this dictdef / stub with little chance of advancement. If opposition is based purely on size of CPU, instead of CPU, we could retarget merge to History of general purpose CPUs. Widefox; talk 12:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if they're synonyms or not. As far as I know, I assume they are. If ICL had some distinctly different implementation of a CPU under this name (and there were such things, back in these early days), then it might have sufficient historical note to be worth adding. As a simple linguistic synonym though, it doesn't. Especially not as one that seems to have had no ongoing influence in terminology. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I take it you have no objection to the retarget? Widefox; talk 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As I see no content to OCP other than it being an obscure ICL term, I see no reason to mention it in any other article, including History of general purpose CPUs. The ICL concept doesn't appear to have had any influence in the history of CPUs, beyond a name that wasn't used outside that company (Sources to the contrary welcome). Per RECENTISM we should keep the article, but that's about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point - it can't be both WP:N and a dictdef - it has no future - I disagree with you there - wp:not. We agree about lack of content, exactly the reason to merge per WP:MERGE. Your main point about weight I agree with, so happy to sideline into the History of general purpose CPUs as 60s-80s mainframes aren't too obscure even if only one vendors term. I will retarget, (but keep the discussion here). Widefox; talk 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

CPU not appropriate for multi-core[edit]

"A computer can have more than one CPU; [..] those ICs are called multi-core processors." I agree. But I often see (including on WP) them just called "CPU" or CPUs (not really better, that could be separate chips). Has the terminology shifted and is CPU allowed (and should be mentioned here?)? Or should I change elsewhere? comp.arch (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)