This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WDC 65C816 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
Why the name change? In short: because <company name> <processor name>, where <company name> belongs to the originating company, is the de facto standard for microprocessor articles in WKP. Note that this also applies to processors which are/have been second-sourced (i.e., manufactured by one or more companies other than the originating one).
Rationale for the article merge: It seemed natural, as the 65802 is a straighforwardly "feature-reduced" version of the 65816. The 65816 is listed first in the title, as that processor is the main variant of the two. --Wernher 14:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article: "It worked at 1,5 mips." Could the contributor or others please give a source of performance figures for the 65816/802 processors? It would be an OK addition to the article. --Wernher 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The recently added material that looked like direct advertising from WDC's website was removed by me. The feature list, which I wikified, gives all the information needed, in a more neutral manner. --Wernher 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to know how exactly the SNES's "customised" 65816 differs. According to SA-1 chip, it's a (Ricoh?) 5a22. It seems that there might not be much difference from a software point of view, though [1]. BTW, ((MOS CPU)) has an entry for "Ricoh 5a22"... If someone can confirm that this is really the SNES CPU, we can have that redirect here. --StuartBrady 23:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
According to List of home computers by category, there was a (third party?) external CMD SuperCPU accelerator for the Commodore 64 and C128. Would that be worth mentioning and if so, where? --StuartBrady 00:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that this 65816/65802 builds upon, not the 6502 but its successor the 6510 (which has more capability). - Theaveng 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Some time in the not-to-distant future I am going to edit this article to be more in line with similar articles for other members of the 6502 family. Although the 65C816 has the "heart" of a 65C02, it is sufficiently advanced over its eight bit counterpart to warrant a more in-depth treatment, especially on the hardware features that only it has (e.g., the ABORT hardware interrupt). The present article is mostly a recapitulation of the bullet points from WDC's product page and doesn't give the reader much information beyond the MPU's development history and the systems in which it was/is used.
Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved – Unopposed if I read it correctly. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
WDC 65816 → WDC 65C816 – Rename article to include letter "C" similar to 3 other WDC articles: WDC 65C02, WDC 65C134, WDC 65C265. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Did the name actually include the "C" in the beginning? I can find lots of references from the era that do not include the C. It appears to have become more common later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
There are references to both on the internet, so what, but it is currently known with the "C" as 65C816. The old name is deprecated, so it should be treated as such on Wikipedia, though both should be included in the article. If you feel that without "C" is correct, then please show me photos of actual IC chips that don't have LETTER(S) between the "65" and "816", seriously please show the evindence, otherwise the old name is moot for the article title. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
1) In 2019, why should a "C" not be added to the 65816 article name, though WDC 65C02, WDC 65C134, WDC 65C265 articles all have "C" in their name, as well as at the official webpage? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
2) Where are photos of 65816 chips without a "C"? Show me proof! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Use of "venerable" to describe the NMOS 6502 is actually quite appropriate once one considers what "venerable" means:
Above was copied from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary of the English language.
I restored the phrase "venerable MOS Technology 6502 NMOS MPU" because the 6502 indeed meets the requirements of "age, character, and attainments." Also, that word has been part of the article's intro for nearly 10 years. I fail to see any good reason to remove it.
From the intro:
The highlighted text is completely false! Addressing constraints apply only to program execution, not data accesses, and there is no “bank switching.”
Contiguous program code cannot span banks without the use of JML
and/or JSL
, only because when the program counter (PC
) wraps, the program bank (PB
) will not increment (which characteristic, in my opinion, was an unnecessary constraint that was apparently the result of Apple’s meddling in the 65C816 design process). It has nothing to do with register sizes. A program whose size is greater than 64KB can be executed if JML
and/or JSL are used to transfer control between banks.
Data fetches and stores can be bank-aware using 16-bit addressing modes—same as with the 6502/65C02, or bank-agnostic using 24-bit “long” addressing modes. 16-bit addressing is generally one clock cycle faster per memory access, but long addressing can fetch from or store to anywhere in the 16MB space.
I am removing the subject text from the article.
Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
In other words, we currently talk about the 65802... but only in the lead. Let's avoid a ((lead extra info))
tag. CapnZapp (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Perchance this discussion might help: Stack Exchange CapnZapp (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You're gonna need to discuss my edit comment ("that section isn't there to counter some claim. It is there in order to explain and contrast. Feel free to improve the phrasing, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater") and not just repeat your revert, 216.152.18.132.
Please begin by understanding why I want that text there. Then you are free to change the phrasing. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)