Talk:Central processing unit/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Article concept unclear/ambiguous?

"Central Processing Unit (CPU)" is a legacy phrase which naturally does not cope well with parallel processing or the rise of multi-core processors. This leads to the question "Does CPU mean a single core or the collection of all the cores within the physical or logical boundaries of some specified information processing device?" The explanations of "how the CPU works" seems to imply the article is referring to a single core.

Instead, how about providing words to:

(1) describe the (new) general concept of "Information Processing Device" (2) explain in a different article how an information processing device "Core Processor" works individually (3) explain how multiple similar/different core processors can work together to provide the total information processing "capacity" for the "information processing device" (4) recognize that other Information Processing Architectures may also be used

Finally, can we maybe deal with earlier architectures under "History"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjalexand (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"CPU" means a single core. A microprocessor can contain multiple CPUs.
Wikipedia shouldn't be introducing new general concepts, so it shouldn't introduce a new concept of an "Information Processing Device". There's already a page that discusses the type of device you're talking about. Guy Harris (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifications

Cant find them, add them. Useless article if I can't find specifications easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.154.176 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it useless? It's supposed to be an article about CPUs, their common features, history, etc. A list of specifications? For which CPUs? Every one that's ever been made? That would be one hell of a list. However, if you feel the material warrants inclusion, you could start off by looking the information up yourself and editing the article to provide it. 24.68.148.215 (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
And Wikipedia isn't a collection of specifications in any case. Guy Harris (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed "process counter" to "instruction pointer"

IP is an actual CPU register, which determines where in memory the CPU is fetching/executing instructions. I have never heard the term "process counter" used to define the register IP/EIP, who exactly wrote this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.126 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The register in question is given different names in different instruction set architectures. It was called the "program counter" on the PDP-10 and on the PDP-11 and is called the "program counter" in SPARC. The Power Architecture doesn't seem to explicitly list a register; its documentation speaks of the "current instruction address" and the "next instruction address". x86 and Itanium call it the "instruction pointer".
The article currently calls it the program counter, and links to that page for the benefit of those who haven't heard that term. Guy Harris (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR - justifiable cause

A Facebook user and I were in discussion concerning CPUs when it became obvious that by definition, he was confusing CPUs with microprocessors, being that CPUs are also known as processors. He also referred to this article to support his argument. I have edited the article accordingly to clarify this ambiguity. His repeated attempts to delete this edit is the reason for the WP:3RR incident. Do review the edit as seen below and if inadequate or in error, suggest a more suitable solution:

"The central processing unit (CPU) or the processor (not to be confused with the microprocessor, a component of the CPU itself) is..." Riggerus (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest: "The central processing unit (CPU) or the "processor" (not to be confused with "microprocessor", just one component of a CPU) is..." or similar. -- FG/T|C 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
But not all CPUs use microprocessors. It's incredibly patronizing of an encyclopedia article to admonish the reader with allegations of confusion. Leave out the parenthetical phrase. The difference between a microprocessor CPU and a CPU in general will become apparent on reading further into the article. (Editing the Wikipedia article to support your arguement has many drawbacks.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed Wtshymanski. The microprocessors section explains clearly that CPUs were dramatically changed by the introduction of microprocessors so, there is little "confusion". My suggestion was that at least we should not refer to A CPU as THE CPU etc. -- FG/T|C 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The present edit is so much better, takes contention completely out of the picture. Thanks Wtshymanski, FG --Riggerus (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Parallelism

I would like to suggest that most of the discussion regarding Parallelism be split off to another article. While there are features of a give CPU design that better enable parallel processing, the discussion goes way beyond CPU attributes. DG12 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

References

A few issues:

  • Mixes WP:FOOTNOTE and the deprecated Footnote3
  • Citations formatted with and without templates
  • Explanatory notes mixed with footnotes

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why "Central"?

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

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

"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)

CPU in SMP setups

See also: User talk:Dsimic § CPU and SMP configurations

Hey Ferry24.Milan! While I do agree that "CPU" as a term might be vague in SMP setups, please provide a reference that backs up the changes you've introduced into the article. As we know, Wikipedia is all about summing up reliable sources. Also, please note that your edit affected the article layout in a negative way, by merging the lead section and Central processing unit § History section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a second, please let me reread your edit once again. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Nah, sorry, that would require a good reference; otherwise, the expressed reasoning goes under WP:OR. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

simplecpu.com

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

http://www.simplecpu.com/Binary.html

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 72.219.202.186 (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???

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 2.84.219.136 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central processing unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the author(s) from the Tatar Wikipedia participants

Thank you, the author(s) of this article. We translated your article into the Tatar language.--A.Khamidullin (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_processing_unit/Archive_3&oldid=1136602828"