Take a look at the evolution of the microprocessor
1976 Intel brings out the 8085, which is an improved version of the 8080, but uses only +5 V instead of the several different voltage levels needed by the 8080. It also features more instruction sets.
1976 Texas Instruments jumps into the fray releasing the TMS9900, which was the first 16 bit microprocessor.
1976 Zilog launches the Z80, featuring instruction set which is a superset of the Intel 8080. It was commonly used in embedded systems later. It is also used in the Radio Shack TRS-80 and Nintendo Game Boy and it became a de facto standard for computers running CP/M.
1978 Intel launches the 8086 with 8087 math coprocessor and this was later used in the IBM PC.
1979 Intel releases a low cost version of the 8086 - Intel 8088, which has 8-bit bus instead of the former's 16-bit bus.
1979 IBM designs the 801 - the first RISC CPU, but it never made it past the prototype.
1979 Zilog Z8000 is launched and this is the first 16-bit microprocessor. It was not compatible with earlier processors and was popularly usually used in desktop-sized Unix machines.
1979 Motorola MC68000, which is a 16/32-bit processor with 24 bit addressing is launched. This processor was commercially very successful and was used in several multi-user computers such as WICAT 150, early Alpha Microsystems computers, Sage II / IV, Tandy TRS-80 Model 16, and Fortune 32:16. It was also used in single-user workstations such as Hewlett-Packard's HP 9000 Series 200 systems, the first Apollo/Domain systems, Sun Microsystems' Sun-1, and the Corvus Concept and graphics terminals like Digital Equipment Corporation's VAXstation 100 and Silicon Graphics' IRIS 1000 and 1200.
It was later used in home computers such as Apple Lisa and Macintosh, Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, and Sharp X68000. It was later used in several embedded systems including several successful gaming consoles. It's still in use today in different equipments such as printers, calculators and set top boxes.
point one is that this doesnt really look like a wikipedia rip off, only the images seem to be from there. point two is that statistically speaking, how many people read this info first here, rather than on wikipedia? do you think that people get all this info at the same time on the same page together on wikipedia? you decide