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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 21, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
January 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
January 24, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          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, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Engineering, applied sciences, and technology.
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[edit]

Hi, I made a website that explains how CPU's work, I'd like to add it here. Here is the link

The site was tweeted by O'Reily media and at not point have I or anyone else found a factual error in it, however It is my own site so I would like to talk page it first. Ideas, Thoughts, criticisms etc? I think It belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzank (talkcontribs) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Where would you like to have it included? The trouble is that, in general, one shouldn't initiate inclusion of self-published content due to a possible WP:COI. At the same time, that page pretty much describes the basics of binary logic and circuits, and that's somewhat different from that the article deals with. Thoughts? By the way, the page looks nice. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I think the page would fit best under the 'External links' tab. As for the WP:COI, I don't think the website has any conflict of interest. The site doesn't advertise any specific version of CPU, nor does It say that one version Is better then another. The goal of the site is to educate people about computers, and I think that that is in-line with wikipedia's goals. However, for transparency's sake, one way in which I do benefit is that on my about page I have a link to my other projects, but only two percent of users visit the about page, and absolutely no content on the main pages advertise me or my other projects. I would benefit from people coming to my site, but not in a way that would conflict or work against Wikipedia's interests. The website also features a interactive CPU that visitors can program on the last page, so I think that a user that would want to interact with a CPU after reading about it on wikipedia can go on my site and play with one there. -rizzank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzank (talkcontribs) 02:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hm, as it wouldn't be used as a reference, I'd say there are no guidelines against including it into the "External links" section. However, you might want to wait for a few more days to receive input from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rizzank: You've done some good work and I don't want to discourage you, but an EL to your website is not suitable for this article per WP:ELNO 1 and 13. Also, if you do find an appropriate article, you should not add the EL yourself (as Dsimic pointed out). A very effective way to bypass these issues is to implant your knowledge directly into WP by editing articles, contributing useful graphics to Commons, or both. I hope you will choose to do that as it is clear you are both knowledgeable and enthusiastic about this subject. Lambtron (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
wp:elno 1 states that EL's shouldn't be added if they do not provide a unique resource that isn't in the article. In my case, interactivity (A interactive CPU, interactive logic gates) is the resource that my site provides. As wp:commons does not have interactive media, I can't simply add the resources from my site. wp:elno 13 states that content must be directly related, and my site is, as it's only focus is on explaining CPU's. The first page is binary, but that's such a foundational subject that even the wikipedia CPU page talks about it, and saying that its not related is like saying counting isn't related to math. I'm not adding the EL myself, I'm bringing it forward and saying It should be here. Rizzank

the microprocessor section evaded topic : not any chip is a cpu, esp not CMOS[edit]

The development of microprocessors Harvard architecture "Mark I" design widely used today began with the Harvard design becoming most prevailant. The research and device in the early 1970's was quickly followed with the Motorola 68000 (circa 1976), which is fully multi-tasking cpu, and drove most personal computers in that era (intel at the time was a smaller company and had no multi-tasking chip). RISC chips were also introduced in small circles, a low cost non-multi taksing intel cpu became available. A next widely used multi-tasking CPU chip was the Sparc chip, modeled from the 68000, which was an open design: such as Sun Microsystems Sparc and Hitatchi Sparc chips (same open chip design, the design of Sparc is still available to the public, the Sparc is not secret or proprietary). The spark ran unix servers and X windows, and X11 came about from those developments. After this many competing fast cpu with similar design flooded the market; the 68000 and sparc were pushed aside.

Meanwhile in mainframe development Cray supercomputer (a subsidiary of the State of Texas, vital data) made a major advance in CPU called SCSI, which solved their problem of expanding and accessing their supercomputer; and this is still in used in iPhone ("firewire"), the original Apple, and is used in Sparc communities as well. SCSI cpu are also is being persued by fast chips that copy the design and are seeking to push it aside. A study of CPU is simply not complete without knowlege of SCSI: a cpu that connects mutiple disperate CPU.

op-amp microprocessors do analog computing which is not mentioned in this article (there still are, also Computer terminal that did analog vector display), and have been cpu at times. These use transistors configured to mix analog signals (perhaps with no clock) rather than to be triggered by digital states, thus can do certain things much faster. One application of this in your computer is DAC (digital to analog conversion). op-ams are not limited to signal conversion, they can do certian mathematic tasks much faster. But a note here is the op-amp, CMOS, or other chips: are usually not cpu (rather they are connected to a cpu) thus most designs are found in the electronic chip articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, "made a major advance in CPU called SCSI [...] and this is still in used in iPhone" – what's this about? Is this some kind of a bad joke? :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

is that true or spam? the Bloch CPU???[edit]

if you want to understand how a Bloch system of transistor works, it's not an actual sphere, but 2 entangled circles, that represent all possible Bloch values. each circle is consisted by 4 transistors at some early models - thus the bloch [test] sphere has only 8 transistors up-down-left-right for each entangled circle.

You have to enter that system digital noise .Ask MIT about digital noise moderators or even programs [programs occupy CPU thus are used only in experiments, not as finalized products, usually you simply make or buy a program to begin] if a Bloch sphere is consited only by 8 transistors, it will average the random noise data very slowly, the more transistors you add, the more accurate is your directivity of the value. 8 classic transistors, that are modified to allow pins enter and exit in a functional qubit. IBM also "played" [not commercial use] with Bloch spheres in the past.

You have to study mainsteam books. And mainstream theory. Then you combine them, and if you cannot speak to a professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)