alavi@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Alavi Ronette Salehi) (04/18/89)
I Have an AT&T 6300+ and wanted to know if there is anyone out there
who has replaced the 80286 CPU with a NEC V40 chip. If so what is
the performance improvement?
also what about compatibility?
and by the way how much is a V40 and where would be a good source
for it.
Thanks x 1,000,000
=======================================================================
/ /| | |\ \ | |
/__ /_| | |_\ \ | | ...att!uwmcsd1!csd4!alavi
/ / | | | \ \ | | (414) 547-9429
/ o / | |__ | \ \| |
=======================================================================silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andy Silverman) (04/18/89)
In article <2103@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> alavi@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Alavi Ronette Salehi) writes: > > I Have an AT&T 6300+ and wanted to know if there is anyone out there > who has replaced the 80286 CPU with a NEC V40 chip. If so what is > the performance improvement? > also what about compatibility? > and by the way how much is a V40 and where would be a good source > for it. I got flamed out on this topic a few months ago. It turns out that the 80286 can't be replaced with a V40 because the two aren't completely pin-compatible. So sorry. Am I wrong? I'm pretty sure that this is the case. +----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Andy Silverman | Internet: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | | "Why?" | Compu$erve: 72261,531 | +----------------+-----------------------------------------+
astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) (04/18/89)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< E A T T H I S I N E W S ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10021@netnews.upenn.edu> silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Andy Silverman) writes: >In article <2103@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> alavi@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Alavi Ronette Salehi) writes: >> I Have an AT&T 6300+ and wanted to know if there is anyone out there >> who has replaced the 80286 CPU with a NEC V40 chip. If so what is >> the performance improvement? >> also what about compatibility? >I got flamed out on this topic a few months ago. It turns out that the >80286 can't be replaced with a V40 because the two aren't completely >pin-compatible. So sorry. Am I wrong? I'm pretty sure that this is >the case. >+----------------+-----------------------------------------+ >| Andy Silverman | Internet: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | >| "Why?" | Compu$erve: 72261,531 | >+----------------+-----------------------------------------+ The NEC Microcomputer Products Databook 1987 describes the V40 as an 8/16 bit microprocessor, the 80286 is a full 16 bits. The V50 is described as a V40 but with a 16 bit data buss. These two V-series chips seem to be clones on the Intel 8018x processors with 8080 emulation. The V60 chip appears to be the 80386. Apparently NEC never got a license to fabricate the 80286, in fact I think Harris was to the only company to second source that chip. -- Tony Stieber astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu "Electrons never die, they just go to the old volts home."
pec@necntc.nec.com (Paul Cohen) (04/19/89)
Tony Stieber astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu states: > The NEC Microcomputer Products Databook 1987 describes the V40 as an 8/16 > bit microprocessor, the 80286 is a full 16 bits. The V50 is described as > a V40 but with a 16 bit data buss. These two V-series chips seem to > be clones on the Intel 8018x processors with 8080 emulation. The V60 chip > appears to be the 80386. Apparently NEC never got a license to fabricate > the 80286, in fact I think Harris was to the only company to second source > that chip. These comments demonstrate that there is some confusion about the V-series parts that I will try to correct. The V20 and V30 are faster, functional extensions of the 8088 and 8086 processors. The V40 and V50 processors consist of the V20 and V30 processors integrated with a family of peripherals so as to be functional extensions of the 80188 and 80186 processors. The functional extensions do include 8080 emulation in each case. For several years the sale of the NEC V-series parts have been hindered by a law suit brought against NEC by Intel who claimed microcode copyright infringement by NEC. The courts have recently found, in NEC's favor, that although microcode can be copyrighted, Intel DID NOT HAVE a valid copyright on the 8086 microcode and even if they did, NEC DID NOT COPY the microcode of the 8086. NEC's microcode-less V33 serves a market that is somewhat similar to the 80286, but it is not compatible with the 80286. It is upward compatible to the 8086 and it supports memory mapping but in a different manner than does the 80286: it directly supports LIM spec 4.0 with internal hardware. Benchmarks show the performance of the V33 to be higher than the 80386SX at the same clock rate. NEC's V70 and V80 are full 32-bit microprocessors with on-chip floating point and on-chip MMU. The V80 also has an on-chip cache. The V60 is a 16-bit external bus version of this same architecture. The V60, V70 and V80 each have 32 32-bit general purpose registers, they support a 4 G-byte paged virtual address space. The V60 and V70 offer an emulation mode to execute 8086 code but this is the closest these processors get to the architecture of any Intel processor. In particular, the V60 is not similar to the 80386 or in fact any processor manufactured by Intel. NEC does not offer any processor compatible with Intel's 80286, 80386 or 80486.
ruiu@dragos.UUCP (dragos) (04/21/89)
In article <2108@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes: > The NEC Microcomputer Products Databook 1987 describes the V40 as an 8/16 > bit microprocessor, the 80286 is a full 16 bits. The V50 is described as > a V40 but with a 16 bit data buss. These two V-series chips seem to > be clones on the Intel 8018x processors with 8080 emulation. The V60 chip > appears to be the 80386. Apparently NEC never got a license to fabricate > the 80286, in fact I think Harris was to the only company to second source > that chip. > Tony Stieber astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu AMD second sources 286's. This was a cause of political problems for a while because AMD produced faster rated units than Intel. It is rumored that this is why AMD does not second source 386's :-). I don't think that V60's are at all like 386's. It resembled a 68000. Enough so that Motorola sued :-). -- Dragos Ruiu "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were ...ruiu@dragos.UUCP a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." ...alberta!dragos!ruiu -Mark Twain
ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (04/23/89)
In article <532@dragos.UUCP> ruiu@dragos.UUCP (dragos) writes: }In article <2108@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes: } AMD second sources 286's. This was a cause of political problems for a }while because AMD produced faster rated units than Intel. It is rumored that }this is why AMD does not second source 386's :-). I heard it the other way around: AMD makes faster 286's (16 MHz, then 20, now 25) because they didn't get a second source agreement for 386's.... Maybe Intel came out with a 20MHz 386SX even though they originally stated that 16 MHz would be the limit because of the ultra-fast 286's.... BTW, Harris also second sources 286's, and also has at least a 20 MHz 286. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something? --