bkliewer@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Bradley Dyck Kliewer) (11/29/88)
Has anyone seen information on the 80486, recently -- especially projected
production dates? I would also like to know what new features it's supposed
to have.
Bradley Dyck Kliewer Hacking...
bkliewer@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu It's not just an adventure
It's my job!caulton@inuxd.UUCP (D Caulton) (11/30/88)
> Has anyone seen information on the 80486, recently -- especially projected > production dates? I would also like to know what new features it's supposed > to have. I talked to Intel just about a month ago--they refuse to officially acknowledge the chip as having any features at all. They have only admitted it exists grudgingly. Infoworld had some rumors about it a month or two ago--you might look there. As I recall it will be an awesome chip, with full math coprocessor functions built into the instruction set (there will, I think, be two versions--one weak, which will have these functions, and a streamlined one without them.) The first machines running with it are supposed to run at 40 MHz, going up from there. But it will be a might expensive- these machines will cost upwards of 20,000 samolians. Not a bad deal for a machine more powerful than most minis, though. Anybody else have more information on these? David Caulton AT&T Bell Labs Indianapolis, IN
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu (11/30/88)
I went to a talk by Intel about it, and they were cagey about actual dates.
From what they said, the '486 does not really have any new features. Mostly,
it's faster (a significant number of long instructions execute in fewer
cycles), and there will be no '487 - it's built in now. (I.e., the FPU
is onboard, which makes it a lot faster).
Alan M. Carroll "How many danger signs did you ignore?
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu How many times had you heard it all before?" - AP&EW
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carrollhollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (12/02/88)
In article <1300@inuxd.UUCP> caulton@inuxd.UUCP (D Caulton) writes: }> Has anyone seen information on the 80486, recently -- especially projected }> production dates? ... }I talked to Intel just about a month ago--they refuse to officially }acknowledge the chip as having any features at all. They have only }admitted it exists grudgingly. ... For what it's worth (not much): About a year ago I caught a rumor that both the 80486 and 80586 chips already exist and are being used in-house at Intel. Supposedly, they were being kept off the market so as not to hurt 80386 sales. Source of the rumor was an upper management type (_not_ from Intel) who claimed (semi?)direct knowledge of these things. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/03/88)
In article <3472@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: |About a year ago I caught a rumor that both the 80486 and 80586 chips |already exist and are being used in-house at Intel. Supposedly, they were |being kept off the market so as not to hurt 80386 sales. I would like to point out that the 80586 is already out. It is Intel's Ethernet interface chip. Sun used it on some of their Sun-3s and in a talk at Usenix mentioned that the 586 driver was exceptionally large because of the many chip bugs they had to work around. Sun uses AMD 7990 LANCE chips in their later model workstations (Sun-3/50 and 3/60). Researchers at LBL have found they can get more Ethernet throughput from the LANCE than the 586. (disclaimer: obviously I work for AMD but I believe these statements are true facts. I am not an authorized representative of the company and these are not official statements.) By the way, the 786 also exists, it's a graphics chip. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (12/03/88)
In article <23671@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >I would like to point out that the 80586 is already out. Apocalypse approaches rapidly. From 8086 we derived 80286, and then things became more orderly as we went to 80386, 80486, and now 80586. When we reach 80986, what will happen? Will Intel add one and get 81086 (8 steps up from the 80286), or will it insert a new digit and make it 800286 (a giant leap in processing power)? In any case there will be a singularity in naming that could wreak havoc with the delicate fabric of segmented space-time. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/03/88)
In article <4940@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: |Apocalypse approaches rapidly. From 8086 we derived 80286, and then |things became more orderly as we went to 80386, 80486, and now 80586. Don't forget the 80186, which came out in 1982, or the 80188, which came out a little later. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
ddl@husc6.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) (12/03/88)
In article <23671@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: | I would like to point out that the 80586 is already out. It is Intel's | Ethernet interface chip. Sun used it on some of their Sun-3s and in a | talk at Usenix mentioned that the 586 driver was exceptionally large | because of the many chip bugs they had to work around. Sun uses AMD | 7990 LANCE chips in their later model workstations (Sun-3/50 and | 3/60). Researchers at LBL have found they can get more Ethernet | throughput from the LANCE than the 586. No, that's the 82586. | | (disclaimer: obviously I work for AMD but I believe these statements | are true facts. I am not an authorized representative of the company | and these are not official statements.) | | By the way, the 786 also exists, it's a graphics chip. 82* again... Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (12/04/88)
>Apocalypse approaches rapidly. From 8086 we derived 80286, and then >things became more orderly as we went to 80386, 80486, and now 80586. >When we reach 80986, what will happen? Use hex of course: 80a86, 80b86 ... 80f86. Then go to base 36 - 80g86,... 80z86. Rumor has it that that is exactly what Boeing is going to do: 7a7, 7b7 ...
dougm@ico.ISC.COM (Doug McCallum) (12/04/88)
In article <23671@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: ... >I would like to point out that the 80586 is already out. It is Intel's >Ethernet interface chip. Sun used it on some of their Sun-3s and in a The Intel LAN controller chip is the 82586 not the 80586. >By the way, the 786 also exists, it's a graphics chip. This is an 82786. The 82 seems to indicate controller chip rather than CPU chip. That leaves the 80586 and 80786 still to come.
johne@hpvcla.HP.COM (John Eaton) (12/06/88)
<<<< <I would like to point out that the 80586 is already out. It is Intel's < Ethernet interface chip. ---------- Is that the same as Intel's 82586 Ethernet interface chip? John Eaton !hpvcla!johne
mlawless@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mike Lawless) (12/06/88)
In article <23671@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <3472@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) write >|About a year ago I caught a rumor that both the 80486 and 80586 chips >|already exist and are being used in-house at Intel. Supposedly, they were >|being kept off the market so as not to hurt 80386 sales. >I would like to point out that the 80586 is already out. It is Intel's >Ethernet interface chip. Not exactly. Intel's Ethernet controller is the 82586, not the 80586. In general, their general-purpose processors are 80xxx, and their specialize coprocessors are 82xxx. Presumably, the rumored 80586 will indeed be a derivative of the 80386 (and '486). -- Mike Lawless, NCR E&M Wichita, Box 20 (316) 636-8666 (NCR: 654-8666) 3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67226 Mike.Lawless@Wichita.NCR.COM {ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/06/88)
In article <23671@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
(some stuff I shouldn't have posted)
Never mind and sorry for the noise.
--
Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com
{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (12/08/88)
You left out the 80186 (as well as the 8088 and 80188). However, it was
"merely" an 8086 with some built-in interface chips. They changed the
numbering system after that.
My bet is that after the 80986, they will go to 80096.
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (12/19/88)
In article <213400015@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I went to a talk by Intel about it, and they were cagey about actual dates. >From what they said, the '486 does not really have any new features. Mostly, >it's faster (a significant number of long instructions execute in fewer >cycles), and there will be no '487 - it's built in now. (I.e., the FPU >is onboard, which makes it a lot faster). Is it a full function FPU (i.e. with trig and transcendentals) or is does it just support the four basic operations? What floating point format does it support? Does this mean the 486 has no coprocessor interface? -- Regards.....George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: {utzoo,uunet}!mnetor!george BELL: (416)475-8980
arlo@wucs1.wustl.edu (Arlo T. Hasselbring) (07/27/90)
Does anyone know the specific nature of the bugs in the B-3 version of the 80486 chip? The current version is the B-6, and C versions are on the way. Do the bugs affect memory management, fpu? Are there any software packages, or classes of software, or classes of software functionality that should be avoided? I would be glad to post responses emailed to me. thanks in advance, arlo hasselbring CS dept. Washington University in St. Louis arlo@wucs1.wustl.edu