The top says:

P605 12 0001
20-90049-001
20-90039-000
(C)INTEl '84 8533

on the back is says:

8519 P
KOREA

it has 24 pins on each side so 48 pins total

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MCS-96
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCS-51

I'm not entirely sure what help you need here, but due to what you tell us, I doubt your ability to count/read

I'm not by any means an expert, but here's what I came up with:

By Intel's naming scheme, that would be a 60512, 6x512, 6051, etc chip I can't find any real info on such a thing existing.
The MCS-51 series is also referred to as 8051's, however I don't think they were in 48 pin packages.
The only 48 pin DIPs I was able to find were in the MCS-96 series, which doesn't line up with any other info you've provided.

Perhaps telling us where you found it, and maybe providing a picture, we could help you more.

If you're wondering how you could use it, it's one of those "If you have to ask, you can't" deals.
That, or you can put it in a nice box on a shelf or something, IDK.

Ok here are some pics of it
top;

bottom:

Ok, I don't think you understand, we see you need help with the "prosseser" but what help are you looking for? Do you want it identified? Do you want to know how to integrate it into a project of yours? We need more information on how this is being utilized dude.

At first i thought i was a prosser but i relized that prossers arnt pdips. (from what i seen) The point: I need it identified and if it can be or act like a microcontroller because i want it to control a led matrix.

What the hells a prosser?
Anyway, I think that some older processors come in 48-pin DIPs.
But, you have no way to program it, don't know if it works, and don't know what it is; therefore, I don't think you can use it.

In all honesty, if you're trying to use this for anything other than a "Because I can" type project, it's way off track already.
For controlling an LED matrix; unless you like doing a lot of research, learning advanced digital electronics, and reading datasheets you are going to have much better luck using something much better documented. The Arduino likely has a shield and code base that will take most of the work out for you.

To use a bare processor that you have no information about is going to be much more expensive any way you look at it. You may think you have all the time in the world and it's not very valuable to you, but honestly, if you spend it asking these questions rather than finding the answers yourself, you've already proven otherwise. You may think you already have the part, so it's cheaper; but you still have to build all of the supporting circuitry; likely much more than you would have to for an Arduino. Furthermore, given the obscurity of this chip to the point that you have to ask other people to google it for you, if you can find a datasheet, I wouldn't be surprised if you had to pay to have a copy made and mailed to you.

So, if you're going to do it for the challenge, good luck. I commend you.
If you were just thinking it'd be cheaper because you have the part already, I can almost guarantee you that you are mistaken.

ok then but the main reason for this was to use a bare chip for compact space. last night i was looking at a jameco catalog and saw some atmel chips which atmega should I use (i have a flash programmer[I need one with high exicution speed and a big memory < 16KB at least 10 pins of i/o.]) I looked in the catalog and I didn't find what i was looking for.

Using a bare processor would be infinitely more difficult (not to mention SLOWER) than using any modern microcontroller.