I loved the Z80 back in the day and really wanted to get my hands on a Z8000 system... sadly, all these years later, I'm still waiting. the Z800 and Z80000 sound superb too (on board cache 10 years ahead of time) .... so sad that Intel "won" in the end.
the aquisition of Zilog by Exxon took that company's CPU out of consideration for their IBM PC, so they went with the Intel 8088. Gee, if not for that, we might all be using PCs that have a Zilog Z8 quadzillion
So much of what this video brags about is still relevant to modern processors and taught in computer science classes today. Too bad that Zilog didn't make it big with their 16- and 32-bit processors like they did with their widely-used (and still produced!) Z80. At least Zilog survived and is still in business!
Very impressive cgi for the time. 6 stage pipeline sounds pretty good, I think thats even better than a 486. Would been a pretty nice game system if it was ever used in one.
Why are they zooming in on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada starting at 0:40? The only reason I can think of is that segment was stock footage borrowed from the National Film Board.
'Thank GOD'🙏🏾 and thank you very much for sharing your support and time 😉 I am electronics/mathematics major 😁 I'd like to know 🙄 if it is possible to get a couple Z8000 CPUs 🙄
And that was really stupid pattern. If they continue we would have now Z800000000. Should be Z82 instead of Z800 or Z80/2 and Z8000 shouldn't begin with 8 at all, if it was 16-bit then Z160 if 32bit Z320 or if it was backward compatible 3280, 1680 something like that. Factor of 10x they used as pattern is mentioned in video they went from 10um in 70s to 3um in early 80, to 1um in late 80 then 350nm - 10x the density.
The z80 was good. It was compatible with the 8080, and also faster and better. It was also extremely well designed against reverse engineering. But the 6502 was ultimately more bang for buck, even if it was not compatible with anything, and had a limited stack. The z8000 was one of the losers of the 16 bit generation. The 68000 beat the competition hands down. It was twice as fast, and it had large linear address space, no io port, just memory mapped io. So the 68000 was simpler to code, faster, and was just as full-featured. That's why all workstations, and even IBM mainframes used it. In 1985 RISC was already in town. ARM made a 25000 transistor CPU that was factors faster than the 68000, and even faster than the 80386. And that was only the efficient branch of RISC technology. The more powerful branch were MIPS and SPARC. Those were faster and used only a third of the silicon that the 386 or 68020 did. If they had focused on the Z800, and would have pushed it out in 1980, then Zilog would have had a chance to have been picked for the IBM PC, and it would probably all have been different.
I agree to all you said about the 68000, except that it was full-featured. It was critically broken due to its inability to execute precise traps, a problem that was fixed in the 68010. With the 68000, it was hard to add proper memory-management and demand paging was only possible with wild tricks. If Motorola would habe released a 680something with on-chip PMMU instead of the 68020, they would have had the 80286 dead in its tracks. Even if they had the same core-arch as the 68000, with an external 16-bit databus. Motorola failed miserably in understanding, what a decent systems-architecture in the early 80s should look like. Likewise, they failed to understand the importance of backwards compatibility when they killed the 68k arch in favour of 88k. But that's another story.
![Intel - From Inventors of the CPU to Laughing Stock [Part 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JH2nXMv6yZI/mqdefault.jpg)
I loved the Z80 back in the day and really wanted to get my hands on a Z8000 system... sadly, all these years later, I'm still waiting.
the Z800 and Z80000 sound superb too (on board cache 10 years ahead of time) .... so sad that Intel "won" in the end.
This is pure gold!! Thanks for sharing it!
the aquisition of Zilog by Exxon took that company's CPU out of consideration for their IBM PC, so they went with the Intel 8088. Gee, if not for that, we might all be using PCs that have a Zilog Z8 quadzillion
That intro, each second I'm expecting to see Tom Baker's face and the old school Doctor Who theme :).
So much of what this video brags about is still relevant to modern processors and taught in computer science classes today. Too bad that Zilog didn't make it big with their 16- and 32-bit processors like they did with their widely-used (and still produced!) Z80. At least Zilog survived and is still in business!
All hail the Z80
Very impressive cgi for the time. 6 stage pipeline sounds pretty good, I think thats even better than a 486. Would been a pretty nice game system if it was ever used in one.
Thanks from latam. Una joya toda la información y el video inédito.
CALLATE FRIKI JAJAJAJAJAJA era mentira espero que la pases bien este año! feliz 2022 un saludo. Kipper
Why are they zooming in on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada starting at 0:40? The only reason I can think of is that segment was stock footage borrowed from the National Film Board.
'Thank GOD'🙏🏾 and thank you very much for sharing your support and time 😉 I am electronics/mathematics major 😁 I'd like to know 🙄 if it is possible to get a couple Z8000 CPUs 🙄
These fancy CGI effects only took 14 months to render lol
my dad was a programmer! but I never found him!
Z80
Z800
Z8000
Z80000
I think I see a pattern here.
And that was really stupid pattern. If they continue we would have now Z800000000. Should be Z82 instead of Z800 or Z80/2 and Z8000 shouldn't begin with 8 at all, if it was 16-bit then Z160 if 32bit Z320 or if it was backward compatible 3280, 1680 something like that. Factor of 10x they used as pattern is mentioned in video they went from 10um in 70s to 3um in early 80, to 1um in late 80 then 350nm - 10x the density.
@@KabelkowyJoe Well, the Z320 was indeed the CMOS version of the Z80000.
90s people built different
What happened 😬
The z80 was good. It was compatible with the 8080, and also faster and better. It was also extremely well designed against reverse engineering. But the 6502 was ultimately more bang for buck, even if it was not compatible with anything, and had a limited stack.
The z8000 was one of the losers of the 16 bit generation. The 68000 beat the competition hands down. It was twice as fast, and it had large linear address space, no io port, just memory mapped io. So the 68000 was simpler to code, faster, and was just as full-featured. That's why all workstations, and even IBM mainframes used it.
In 1985 RISC was already in town. ARM made a 25000 transistor CPU that was factors faster than the 68000, and even faster than the 80386. And that was only the efficient branch of RISC technology. The more powerful branch were MIPS and SPARC. Those were faster and used only a third of the silicon that the 386 or 68020 did.
If they had focused on the Z800, and would have pushed it out in 1980, then Zilog would have had a chance to have been picked for the IBM PC, and it would probably all have been different.
I agree to all you said about the 68000, except that it was full-featured. It was critically broken due to its inability to execute precise traps, a problem that was fixed in the 68010. With the 68000, it was hard to add proper memory-management and demand paging was only possible with wild tricks.
If Motorola would habe released a 680something with on-chip PMMU instead of the 68020, they would have had the 80286 dead in its tracks. Even if they had the same core-arch as the 68000, with an external 16-bit databus.
Motorola failed miserably in understanding, what a decent systems-architecture in the early 80s should look like. Likewise, they failed to understand the importance of backwards compatibility when they killed the 68k arch in favour of 88k. But that's another story.
Is that Jerry Seinfeld as a young Mr. Zilog? ua-cam.com/video/FACRFrl_9zE/v-deo.html
This is so 80s its not even funny