You do not include the 8085, Intel's response to the Z80, with some new instructions some of which were not documented. There was, I believe, a period of several months shortly after the 8085 introduction when the 8080 parts shipped by Intel were actually made by Texas Instrument since Intel had lost the 8080 process.
I'm surprised there are no Zilog (Z80) chips in this collection. They were an 8080 clone, massively popular, with a very useful set of extended instructions including block copies and an extended register set.
Zilog is a different story. I love them as well, but i8080 is quite exceptional to me personally. Somehow it still remember almost all machine codes of this CPU and can program even without the assembler ;-). I know, Z80 is a derivative from i8080 compatible in most of instructions, so maybe another collection.
What I really liked about the Z80 was the sane and regular assembler syntax. I know that's not a feature of the Z80 per-se, but when Zilog had copyright problems with the Intel assembler, I think they went one better.
ld a,(hl)
load accumulator from the address pointed to by the hl register pair
The equivalent 8080 was:
mov a,m
where you had to know that 'm' was really the h & l registers paired plus indirected. The Intel syntax was very irregular, eg. "mvi" was move an immediate value into a register, "stax" was store (something? I forget exactly). "lxi" was load immediate(?) into a register pair?
The Zilog syntax used "ld" for all of them.
The only better assembler I've used was the 68000.
I love seeing how other people express and communicate the things they are passionate about. I fully support people geeking out about whatever they please, as long as it makes them happy :)
Perhaps if you find it uninteresting you should refrain from commenting? Just a friendly suggestion. I mean, what value are you adding by saying you find it uninteresting?
What makes your comment particularly annoying is that it is obvious you haven't even read the short article that accompany the pictures. It states two things:
"Testing revealed that all processors are identical according to the CPU Exerciser except clones from AMD."
"Interestingly, AMD i8080-compatible chips were reverse-engineered from schematics literally stolen from Intel."
In other words, they are identical, which is why they look identical. DUH!
Now now, I'm surprised my light-hearted post caused such a backlash.
>Perhaps if you find it uninteresting you should refrain from commenting? Just a friendly suggestion. I mean, what value are you adding by saying you find it uninteresting?
For one, I can't downvote, so this is the only way I could express my disapproval. And different opinions are valuable in themselves, as you can't have rational, democratic discourse without them.
>In other words, they are identical, which is why they look identical. DUH!
That doesn't even disprove what I said, rather affirms it. It's like saying "The emperor is nude, that's why he seems to have no clothes. DUH!".
Well, didn't my previous post have substance? It's like everything I say nowadays gets buried. I'm going to guess it's power users trying to silence the small fry.
Your first post in this thread was empty. Unfortunately there is a kind of "pile on" effect, where all your posts in this thread get downvoted even if those posts don't deserve a downvote.
Hopefully that will correct after a few hours - other people will upvote any incorrectly downvoted comments.
