A Central Processing Unit (CPU), or sometimes just called processor, is a description of a class

of ilogc machines that can execute computer programs.

In computer architecture, 32-bit integers, memory addresses, or other data units are those that
are at most 32 bits (4 octets) wide. Hence, 32-bit CPU and ALU architectures are those that are
based on registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.

In computer architecture, 64-bit integers, memory addresses, or other data units are those that
are at most 64 bits (8 octets) wide. Also, 64-bit CPU and ALU architectures are those that are
based on registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.

HISTORY OF
PROCESSORS:

First Generation
Processors:

Due to the IBMs choice

as the assembler of the
first PCs, the Intels processors were selected to be the first in use, creating what is called
now a 1st generation of processors.
First generation processors:
8086 and 8088
80186 and 80188
8087 (coprocessor)

One of the first processors of 16bits and 16bit data bus. Introduced in the middle of
1978.Could address 1MB of memory. Was a little too modern for the actual market
Situation. Its cost was not adequate to performance.

The Intels response to market conditions after not too successful release of 8086.
Remained 16bit processor, but required only 8bit data bus. Slower than 8086, but
advertised widely as the same family of 16bit processors.
 The 8088 was slower, but cheaper than 8086. It caused IBM computers to be cheaper
than the Apple computers. 8088 ran at 4.77MHz, taking 12 cycles to complete each
instruction.

In reality only 640kB were available on the 8088, the rest was reserved for BIOS and
adapter cards.

2nd Generation Processors:

80286 introduced in 1982. Released also 80287 coprocessor which was identical to 8087
(with some small compatibility changes that failed on synchronization) Protected mode
of execution, improved DMA, increased speed, versions for laptop
computers.

24bit address bus, allowing to address 16MB of memory. First ones worked with 6MHz
to reach later up to 25MHz. Did not require cooling fan Just 4.5 cycles average per
instruction

Couldnt switch back from protected mode to real mode. Addressing was not used, as at
the moment hardly any PC had more than 1MB of memory Didnt cooperate well with
math coprocessor (or vice-versa). Due to that was mainly used in embedded systems.

3rd Generation processors:

All 386 had internal 32bit registers 386DX the first introduced by Intel 386SX
cheaper version of DX with 24bit memory addressing (up to 16MB rather than 4GB)
386SL laptop version of 386 80386 Coprocessor without synchronization issues
worked with the same clock speed.

Working protected and virtual mode allowing to do much more than on processors of
earlier generations, like addressing up to 64TB of virtual memory.

Working with speed of 16-33MHz, offering the same execution efficiency as 286, plus
the new programming possibilities. Memory Management Unit (segmentation).Very
expensive and still being one step too forward.
3rd Generation: 386SX .Introduced because of market situation (competition with AMD
and Cyrix cheap units). 24bit address bus made them much cheaper Processor of 3rd
 generation, but with performance very similar to ones of 2nd. The advantage was
compatibility. Generations of the computer processors

3rd Generation: 386SL Lower power consumption aiming at usage in laptop systems.
Possibility of implementing power management through System Management Interrupt.

4th Generation processors:

After revolutionary ideas realized in the 3rd generation, the 4th generation focused on
optimizing the performance improving what was already invented. The great increase in
performance made working with GUI a real option. Windows increased its sales
dramatically.

4th Generation: Secret of 486. It was the first fully pipelined processor. Fetching,
decoding, execution, memory access and writing back the results were happening
simultaneously but for different instructions.

4th Generation: More secrets of 486 Every two clock cycles the instruction execution
was being finished. Level 1 cache with 90-95% hit ratio. In some versions built-in math
coprocessor Clock speed ranging from 16MHz to 133MHz, but processors could work
with any lower speed than the maximum one given.

4th Generation:486DX2. Nearly identical to 486DX. Had the clock multiplayer circuit
the first chip that used clock doubling. It allowed the processor to run twice faster than
external bus. The 8kB cache was shadowing the slower system bus. Was one of the best
choices at the moment. With 16MB of RAM could be used with success for several years.
486DX3 was never released, but 486DX4 was released multiplying bus speed by 3 (not
4).

4th Generation: Other 486 by Intel. There were many variations of 486 by Intel:
i486DX , i486SL , i486DXL, i486SX (P23) , i486DX2 (P24), i486DX-S (P4S) ,
i486DX2-S (P24S), i486SX-S (P23S) , i486SXL, i486SX2, IntelDX4WB, i486DX2WB,
i486DX2, 80486DX4, The main differences were the clock speed, the voltage and power
management features, the size of cache and cache strategy, the clock speed multiplayer
(DX2 and DX4).

4th Generation: Overdrive processors. There were produced processors in the version
called Overdrive. 486 Over Drive was a category of processors to upgrade existing 486
systems. They could run on the same FSB, but with greater internal speed, also providing
some additional instructions, bigger and better organized cache etc.

5th Generation Processors:

 Intel willing to protect its processors names quit the number convention and instead of
586 called his new processor Pentium released in 1992. First Complex Instruction Set
Computer (CISC) implementing superscalar technology.

5th Generation: Superscalar. The first Pentium processor contained two pipelines
called U and V. The pipeline U could execute any instruction. V could execute only the
most basic ones. Behaved like two 486 processors sharing registers and bus, executing
the same program.

Every cycle was executed about one instruction. But at around 20-30% of time there were
executed two instructions at the same time. Further optimizing could increase that rate.

5th Generation new concepts 64bit data bus increased data exchange with RAM. The
registers were still 32bits. Later improved with multimedia instructions (MMX) Dividing
the cache into cache of data and instructions.

Branch prediction mechanisms to cache instructions better. Multiprocessor machines

support. Remade, faster FPU but with bugs.

5th Generation Intel models The first models codenamed P5 and P54C were produced
in technology of 0.80 and 0.60 micrometer. These early Pentium processors were having
a FPU bug.

The bug was heavily criticized although it was occurring in about 1 over 9 billion divides
with random numbers. The mistake could be significant (up to 3rd significant digit)

5th Generation Intel models The later Pentium models were produced in technology of
0.35 to 0.25 micrometer. Their clock speed was reaching the 300MHz in case of Pentium
MMX. The Pentium processors in 5th generation started to be produced in 1993 and the
last Pentium MMX was released in 1999
 5th Generation Intel models: MMX Pentium MMX was the first processor done in
technology of 0.25 micrometer and with special set of Multimedia instructions.
Developed by Intel's Research & Development Center in Haifa, Israel.

New 57 seven instructions operating on different data types (e.g. 32bit integer, as well as
8bit, 16bit and 64bit integers). In later versions the level 1 cache was doubled from16kB
to 32kB.

6th Generation processors:

The 686 processors represent a new generation with features not found in the previous
generation units. The 686 processor family began when the Pentium Pro was released in
November 1995. Since then, Intel has released many other 686 chips, all using the same
basic 686 core processor as the Pentium Pro released already in 1995

6th Generation secrets: New feature Dividing the CISC instructions into RISC
instructions (microinstructions).Executing them multiple execution units. Parallel and out
of the initial order. Execution speculation. Advanced branch prediction Generation.

Intel vs AMD Processors:

Building - or simply buying - a PC isn't an easy task. With a seemingly endless list of
components to consider, there is evidently a lot standing in the way between you and powering
on that hardy rig for the first time.

Among these necessities is the CPU, the central processing unit, or just the processor for short.
The processor is an integral part of your computer, so much so that it's often referred to as the
brains of the operation.

However, like with the graphics card space and the war of Nvidia vs AMD (or Advanced Micro
Devices) , there's an incessant battle between the two major processor manufacturers as well:
Intel and AMD. With AMD beset on all sides, let's look at how its APUs, like its desktop-grade
Zen processors stack up to Intel's CPUs, such as the upcoming Kaby Lake and six-core Coffee
Lake processors.

For bargain shoppers, the most common misconception is that AMD chips are more affordable
than those powered by Intel. Truth be told, AMD does its best CPU work at the entry level,
which could explain this mistaken belief.

An Athlon X4 860K, for instance, boasts a 3.7GHz frequency (4.0GHz with Turbo Boost) for
only $75 (about 52, AU$103; as of this writing). Even for a dual-core processor, that's not a bad
deal if you aren't expecting much as far as integrated graphics are concerned.

If you want, though, you can get something like the AMD A6-5400K for about $40 (about 27,
AU$55; as of this writing). However, you could say the same about Intel's comparable Celeron
series. The truth is that both Intel and AMD processors typically retail at about the same price;
AMD is only known for being cheaper because its chips are much less popular once you reach
the $200 mark.
Being known for cores, AMD will give you more for less, but Intel is notorious for consistently
outranking "The Red Team" in many cases due to hyper threading, but I'll gloss over that in the
next section.

That said, processor prices fluctuate constantly. Wait a few months after launch, and you'll
quickly find that the Intel Core i7-6700K you were eyeing has dropped in cost. Understandably,
patience is a virtue that's easier said than followed - especially when you're distracted by the
prospect of shiny, next-gen processors touching down within a few months.

If you want the

best of the best
performance
with little
regard for
price, then turn
your head
towards
Intel. Not
only does the
Santa Clara
chipmaker get
persistently better ratings in CPU benchmarks, but Intel's processors draw less heat as well,
blessing them with lower TDP (thermal design point) ratings across the board.

Much of this is owed to Intel's implementation of hyper threading, which has been incorporated
in its CPUs since 2002. Hyper threading keeps existing cores active rather than letting any of
them remain unproductive.

AMD, on the other hand, takes pride in its focus on increasing the number of cores in its chips.
On paper, this would make AMD's chips faster than Intel's, had it not make a hugely negative
impact on heat dissipation.

While cooling an Intel processor is a rather straightforward process, because AMD likes to shove
as many cores as possible into a single processing unit, its chips tend to run hotter much to the
discomfort of the more affordable cooling solutions. (As a result, you could say this makes AMD
chips equally as or more expensive than their Intel counterparts.)

Take AMD's $259 (about 179, AU$357; as of this writing) FX 9590 for example. It clocks in at
4.7GHz, or 5.0GHz with AMD Overdrive installed. Oh, and did we mention it has eight cores?

That's twice the number of cores bolstered by the Core i7-6700K. But, according to PCMark
tests conducted over at CPU Boss , Intel's rigid beast still comes out on top in terms of overall
performance.
Even though AMD's processor technically has a faster clock speed, as you can assume, with
more cores comes a heavier workload. The clock speed doesn't mean much when carrying out
the same tasks requires more effort from the CPU, and that's why - for now, at least - Intel's chips
bring objectively better performance.

When you buy a new computer or even just a CPU, it's typically locked at a specific clock speed
as indicated on the box. Some processors ship unlocked, allowing for higher clock speeds than
recommended by the manufacturer, giving users more control over how they use their
components (though, it does require some precautionary expertise ).

AMD is normally more generous than Intel in this regard. With an AMD system, you can get
more juice out of a mid-range, A-series APU for a modest price. Meanwhile, Intel's easily
overclockable, unlocked configurations don't start until at least the $200 (200, AU$300) range,
beginning with the Core i5-6600K.

The unlocked chips Intel does offer, however, are delightfully faster than their AMD
counterparts. If you're shopping on a budget, AMD offers the most bang for your buck in terms
of overclocking, assuming you know what you're doing. Otherwise, where money is no object,
Intel's exhibits the best clock speeds around with its unlocked CPUs.

Multi Cores & Multi Processors:

Up until 2005 virtually all processors on the market were single core. Clock speed ruled the roost
and the fastest processor was always the best choice. Nowadays processors have multiple cores
and systems such as the Mac Pro 5,1 can be built with multiple processors (each with multiple
cores).

Multi core processors became popular as it became increasingly difficult to increase clock speed
on single core processors due to technological limitations. Rather than working tirelessly for an
extra 0.1GHz of clock speed, manufacturers instead added more identical processing units to
single processors.
A core is a single processing unit, multi core processors have multiple processing units. So a dual
core 3.0GHz processor has 2 processing units each with a clock speed of 3.0GHz. A 6 core
3.0GHz processor has 6 processing units each with a clock speed of 3.0GHz. The 6 core
processor we just described has a total clock speed of 18.0GHz. That means your programs will
run 6 times faster than with a single core 3.0GHz processor then? Well, not exactly.

Multi-threading & Hyper-threading:

So weve talked about multi-cores and multi-processors and how they may help your apps run
faster, this is where multi-threading and hyper-threading come in. Multi-threading is the ability
of an application or operating system to utilise multiple cores for processing. When apps are
written with multi-threading in mind they can benefit from the plethora of cores available in
modern CPUs and see huge performance increases over using a single core processor.

So what if your app doesnt support multi-threading? First off, this is a rarity in 2014, multi-core
support is fantastic nowadays and will only continue to improve. However, if your applications
by some chance dont support multi-threading, you will still be better off with as many cores as
possible. When your apps only support a single thread (and you are using a multi-core system),
they will get a whole core to themselves (unless you are running more single threaded apps than
you have cores), rather than sharing cores as they would on a single core system.

So more cores is a good thing, multi-threading support is even better. Whats hyper-threading?
Hyper-threading is a proprietary Intel technology that allows a single core to split into a virtual
and a logical core and share workload between the two. Hyper-threading is especially useful
when apps are well optimised for multi-threading.

Higher Clock Speed vs. More Cores:

 Pros

o Applications that support multi-threading will greatly benefit from having a

higher number of cores at their disposal

o Increasing the amount of cores in your CPU is a cost effective way of increasing
performance

o Multi-threading support for applications will continue to improve over time

o You will be able to run more apps at once without seeing performance drops

o Great for running multiple virtual machines

Cons

o Lower single threaded performance than a higher clock speed processor

Fewer cores, higher clock speed

Pros

o Better single threaded performance

o Lower cost option

Cons

o Fewer cores to split between applications

o Not as strong multi-threading performance

The best thing to do in most cases is to look into the support your applications of choice provide
for multi-threading. Following this you can decide whether youd be better off with, for example,
a 3.46GHz 6 core system or a 2.66GHz 12 core system.You often hear server vendors and
processor companies talk about and publish benchmark scores. While AMD Opteron
processor-based servers lead and perform very well in many benchmarks, we encourage
customers to trial their applications on a server before making a purchase rather than making a
decision based on benchmarks. Often times, benchmarks dont represent real-world customer
applications (e.g. VMmark scores are based on running numerous lightly loaded virtual machines
when most customers run virtual machines at high utilization levels).