Talk:Central processing unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Central processing unit article.
Featured article star Central processing unit is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Central processing unit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review Central processing unit has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Archive 1 Archive 2

Processor was merged into Central processing unit (this article). That history now exists at Talk:Central processing unit/Processor article history.--Commander Keane 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] List of CPU flags?

Is there a list somewhere (in Wikipedia or not) of common CPU flags (like SSE, APIC, MMX, 3dnow...) and what they mean? (Other than the one I started building at User:Dcljr/Sandbox#List of CPU flags, of course.) - dcljr (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... For what architecture? Try reading the programmer's manual for whatever ISA you're using (looks like late x86 to me). -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-23 18:36Z
That list is a mixed bag of terms, some of which refer to features (such as MMX, SSE, 3DNow!), some of which refer to components (such as APIC and MTRR), some of which refer to I/O buses (such as MCA and VME), some of which refer to instructions (such as SYSCALL) - there's really nothing they all have in common other than being computer hardware terms (and some of them might not even be computer hardware terms - "DE" goes to a disambiguation page, and the only computer term there is "Desktop Environment"). Guy Harris 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a mixed bag exactly because I don't know what they all mean! <g> Anyway, most of these are from the "flags" entry of "cpuinfo" in Linux (see, for example, [1]). - dcljr (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The ones from "cpuinfo" are probably the flags you get from the x86 CPUID instruction, listing the capabilities of the processor. Lists of them can be found in the Intel and AMD documentation of the x86/IA-32 (including EM64T) and AMD64 instruction sets; see, for example, the description of the CPUID instruction in IA-32 Intel® Architecture Software Developer’s Manual Volume 2A: Instruction Set Reference, A-M. "MCA" and "VME", unfortunately, are ambiguous; they can refer to the MCA and VME buses, which are system I/O buses and are characteristics of the system as a whole rather than of the processor, or they could refer to "Machine Check Architecture" and "Virtual 8086 Mode Enhancements", which are x86 CPU features and have nothing to do with the MCA or VME buses - the x86 CPU features are the ones reported by "cpuinfo". Guy Harris 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I just found List of computing and IT abbreviations, which would seem to be the place for this info, but the few terms I've looked for so far haven't been in the list. - dcljr (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think CPUID would be an even better place for this information (please add any details it leaves out). --70.189.77.59 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article...

Sorry for cluttering the talk page, I just want to say this is a really well-written and informitive article. 128.208.41.109 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peformance comparison of common processors

It would be useful to read a comparison of the performances of common processors (either in a table in the article, or an external link).

I don't care for the idea. Performance comparisons are very involved and detailed discussions, are often quite subjective and subject to testing bias, and would bulk up the article significantly. Furthermore, a fair sample of performance comparisons from the entire history of CPUs could be very difficult to contain in a table. That being said, I think it might be an interesting and relevant factoid to include a short sample comparison of, say, the integer performance of a very early von Neumann computer to a modern microprocessor. If you want to collect some figures on modern microprocessors, I can look up the data for old computers. -- mattb @ 2006-09-14T04:41Z
I think there is room for such a table *somewhere* in Wikipedia, but I agree central processing unit is not the place. Please stick that information in benchmark (computing) until we find a better place? --70.189.77.59 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] manufacturers of central processing units?

Who are the main manufacturers of CPUs and how is performance measured

1. Too many to briefly enumerate. 2. In too many ways to briefly enumerate. Reading CPU design may provide a little enlightenment. -- mattb @ 2006-10-22T02:16Z
I like the CPU design article. It mentions As of 2004, only four companies are actively designing and fabricating state of the art general purpose computing CPU chips. So -- are 4 too many to enumerate? Or do we need to update that article to include those other companies you are thinking about?
Those are excellent questions. Please help us improve Wikipedia to make the answers better and to make the answers easier to find. Many companies that design CPUs are Fabless semiconductor company, who pass their design over to some other Semiconductor companies, which actally fabricate the CPU. CPU performance is measured using benchmarks -- but be aware that there is no one "performance" number -- one CPU may perform one benchmark faster, but some other CPU may perform your actual application faster. Do we need to mention/link to these things in the article? --70.189.77.59 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different CPU models?

What is physically different between similar processors, eg. one that is 2 ghz, and one that is 3 ghz?

There may be absolutely nothing physically different about them, or they may be totally different. You'd need more information than just clock speed to say. -- mattb @ 2006-10-19T19:03Z
Say they were the exact same model, and only the clock speed is different? Would only the multipilier be changed in the hardware?
Well, in some form or another the global clock signal will have its period decreased. Whether that means changing a clock multiplier or the target frequency of some oscillator is application-specific. -- mattb @ 2006-10-22T02:13Z
Certainly one *can* run a 3 GHz processor at 2 GHz, so there is not necessarily a physical difference.
However, most 2 GHz processors cannot run at 3 GHz -- there *is* a physical difference.
So, from least amount of difference to most difference, we have:
  • only the external clock speed is different -- no internal difference.
  • only the internal multipler is different.
  • They were manufactured the same way, with the same photomask, but chip-to-chip and wafer-to-wafer variations in blurriness and defects made some chips fail to run at the designed speed ("weak transistors"), but the chips passed the test at a slower speed.
  • They were manufactured according to the same layout, but a photomask shrink produced smaller, faster transistors and shorter, faster wires.
  • The layout was tweaked slightly ("transistor sizing", "strengthening transistors") to improve the critical path.
  • the chip was completely re-designed (deeper pipelines, improved clocking tree, smaller cache, etc.) to shorten the critical path.
Does that answer your question?
(Should I move this to the CPU design article?) --70.189.77.59 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link inappropriate?

The external link to cpu-collection.de, 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 (talk • contribs) .

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] Why???

Why does this get vandalized so much, anyway??? What makes this a popular target??? 170.215.83.212 07:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You got me... I guess it's just people trying to mess up a good thing. -- mattb @ 2006-11-17T16:07Z
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/n/Talk%7ECentral_processing_unit_8176.html"