> On May 24, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Liam Proven <lpro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 22 May 2016 at 04:52, Guy Sotomayor Jr <g...@shiresoft.com> wrote: >> Because the 808x was a 16-bit processor with 1MB physical addressing. I >> would argue that for the time 808x was brilliant in that most other 16-bit >> micros only allowed for 64KB physical. > > > Er, hang on. I'm not sure if my knowledge isn't good enough or if that's a > typo. > > AFAIK most *8* bits only supported 64 kB physical. Most *16* bits > (e.g. 68000, 65816, 80286, 80386SX) supported 16MB physical RAM. > > Am I missing something here? > > I always considered the 8088/8086 as a sort of hybrid 8/16-bit processor. >
My definition of a CPU’s bitness is the native register width and not the bus width (or ALU width). From that definition, the 8088/8086 are 16-bit CPUs. I would certainly consider the 68K, etc to be 32-bit CPUs. The 80286 was definitely a 16-bit CPU and *any* 80386 (SX, DX, whatever) are most definitely 32-bits. Your argument would say that most of the low end IBM 360’s would be 16-bit machines which is insane. TTFN - Guy