I agree with Chuck. After all, the 8080 didn't even really start to get traction until the latter half of 1975. The IMP and PACE were both more capable, but didn't have the "mindshare". The 1801 was another good CPU that got overlooked because it was a two-chip solution. Low power, powerful register set (When I read the 8080 data sheets, my familiarity with the 1800 series had me actually break out in a laugh when Intel called their registers "general purpose".) These chips were RISC before there was RISC.
The adulation of the 4004 baffles me, to be honest. It was a step in the process, but its contemporary impact was far less than is made out. It's only in retrospect that it can be made to appear important. It was an expensive, complex, multichip solution. I avoided it back in the day and I'd never want to build around one today unless I was feeling especially masochistic. What it did the SC/MP did better in every possible way. I'd rather base a system on an 8041 or 8048 than a 4004.
The 8008 was crippled as well. Again, why waste your time with a chip that was crippled by Intel's limited packaging abilities so as to be spread among so many chips when you could get a nice two-chip solution like the 1801? I have to say that what I was really looking for in a processor at the time was a 12-bit processor, rather than an 8-bit. I ended up doing plenty with 8-bit chips and having a great time with them, more than I expected coming from an IBM/DEC background, but I wasn't along among those who at the time looked at the 8008 and 8080 and said "when are you going to make a
real computer chip?"
The 8085 was the first of the Intel line that I really liked, and by the time it shipped in quantity the Z-80 was already out. The 8085 finally had a single supply, no external bus expander required, and for good measure an internal clock. But Intel was beat to market on all these features by other CPU manufacturers.
The single-chip CPU was coming, 4004 or not. There were pressures from several areas pushing toward the integration of the different functions. Witness the differences between the different early CPUs, like the F8 and 1802 and so on. Each was shaped by a different view of how the processor should be organized and used, and by each company's manufacturing abilities. What later began distorting the market was the effect of the software base. That has continued to this day, making certain processors stand out more in retrospect than they did in their own day.
Anyway, the 4004 is an ugly, ugly, ugly chip set. The instruction set is narsty as can be. It's technically interesting and it has an interesting history, but it wasn't the pinnacle of achievement in 1971-2 by any means--even the dates are mythical retro-inventions. But that's another story.