wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (11/09/89)
> > Does anyone know about any companies that have produced (or are producing) a > 80686 workstation? Does anyone know how much faster the 80686 is compared to > an 80486? From what I've read on the chip, it would seem to be a minimum > of 4 times faster due to it being a 128 bit floating point chip and its one > instruction per clock cycle setup. umm... this is a joke, right? the 80686 isnt going to be out for what, 6-8 years. maybe the article just got cought in a time warp. -wayne
ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (T. Tim Hsu) (11/09/89)
About the 80686 chip by Intel....
A summer issue of Spectrum magazine (an IEEE publication) gave the details
about the 686 chip, but I'll summerize a bit the publication here. The 686
and the 486 were similtaneous projects with the 686 staff being the more
prominent group while the 486 staff given the higher priority. I'm going on
the assumption that Intel didn't figure on the 686 staff working as fast as
they did. The chip is a 128 bit chip with either 121 or 124 bits being used.
It is a floating point chip and it has prebuilt 3D vector graphics
capabilities. It runs at only 33 MHz, but it is a RISC chip, it performs one
instruction per clock cycle (actually it takes a total of three clock cycles
to process and instruction, one to load in the instruction onto a cache, one
to load the instruction from the cache to the processor, and one for the
processor to execute the instruction, but all three phases are occurring
similtaneously). I do believe it has a 32K cache on the chip.
The article goes on to tell about how the 686 staff had to design around
production, how they had to design around the testing procedures, how the
existing software to create wafers had to be redesigned to handle a project
of such complexity, and how the 686 staff had to also be one step ahead of
the 486 staff in order to use the proper machines (since the 486 staff had
priority over the equipment). One example of a limitation was that testing
could only handle 127 bits and that 486 deadlines kept them from designing
more portions of the chip by hand.
Is there a catch to all of this? Yes, just one, the 686 chip is no longer
compatable with the older model chips, but then again, UNIX runs on anything.
Once more, as a query to more informed readers of the net, I thought I saw
a 686 workstation made by MIPS, but I'm not sure, can someone verify this,
and/or tell me of workstations that you know contain the 686 chip? The 686
seems be a good workstation for intensive graphics based applications.
--
T. Tim Hsu UUCP ...pur-ee!ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
ARPA ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
FAX 1 317 494 0566 BITNET xajz@PURCCVMtneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/09/89)
After reading the various followups including his own, I now suspect Hsu's talking about the i860, which was released about the same time as the 486 and has RISC properties. Perhaps IEEE made up what it thought was a likely name, or got it lost in translation. This is a case where calling Intel might have yielded more than posting. -- 'The Nazis have no sense of humor, so why -| Tom Neff should they want television?' -- Phil Dick |- tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
rvireday@pldote.intel.com (~Richard Vireday) (11/10/89)
In article <5024@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (T. Tim Hsu) writes: > >About the 80686 chip by Intel.... > >The chip is a 128 bit chip with either 121 or 124 bits being used. >It is a floating point chip and it has prebuilt 3D vector graphics >capabilities. It runs at only 33 MHz, but it is a RISC chip, it performs one >instruction per clock cycle. ... I do believe you are talking about the i860. Intel stated at the i486 announcement that the i586 would be next, then the i686, i786, etc. They wouldn't abandon this naming scheme so blithely. (Unless you've got an i586 already?) >Once more, as a query to more informed readers of the net, I thought I saw >a 686 workstation made by MIPS, but I'm not sure, can someone verify this, MIPS use an Intel processor? Hmmm. What's their stock at? :-) >The 686 seems be a good workstation for intensive graphics based applications. The i860 is a beautiful beast for intensive graphics. I've read stories in the press of many companies being surprised at the performance of this chip, and looking into using it. Check out a back issue of "Microprocessor Report". They did a whole look at the device, and performance. It was sometime in the summer I think. --Richard Vireday Address: Somewhere in the Foothills on the way to Tahoe i486 and i860 are trademarks of Intel Corporation I am not.
fjk@systech.uucp (Fred Kokaska) (11/10/89)
In article <5024@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (T. Tim Hsu) writes: > > About the 80686 chip by Intel.... > > [ i860 description deleted ] > > Is there a catch to all of this? Yes, just one, the 686 chip is no longer > compatable with the older model chips, but then again, UNIX runs on anything. That would be a BIG catch! You can bet INTeL won't leave the zillions of DOS users (read "cutomers") out in the cold! Fred Kokaska | "I can't complain but sometimes I still do" Systech Corporation | - Joe Walsh uunet!systech!fjk |
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (11/11/89)
In article <67@pldote.intel.com> rvireday@pldote.UUCP (Richard Vireday) writes: > >>Once more, as a query to more informed readers of the net, I thought I saw >>a 686 workstation made by MIPS, but I'm not sure, can someone verify this, > >MIPS use an Intel processor? Hmmm. What's their stock at? :-) The MIPS RS2030 workstation has an NEC V50 as an I/O processor. Nothing we build has "686"s, of which I Know of no buyable part with that label, but who knows.... In any case, we're not public yet.... -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater) (11/13/89)
>The i860 is a beautiful beast for intensive graphics. I've read stories in >the press of many companies being surprised at the performance of this chip, >and looking into using it. Check out a back issue of "Microprocessor Report". >They did a whole look at the device, and performance. It was sometime >in the summer I think. Microprocessor Report i860 coverage: Introduction and overview, March '89 Graphics unit evaluation, April '89 Marketing issues (is it a coprocessor?), Sept '89 Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report mslater@cup.portal.com 550 California Ave., Suite 320, Palo Alto, CA 94306 415/494-2677 fax: 415/494-3718
news@guardian.UUCP (News Super User) (11/28/89)
In article <5024@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (T. Tim Hsu) writes: | |About the 80686 chip by Intel.... | |A summer issue of Spectrum magazine (an IEEE publication) gave the details |about the 686 chip, but I'll summerize a bit the publication here. The 686 |and the 486 were similtaneous projects with the 686 staff being the more |prominent group while the 486 staff given the higher priority. <deleted> | |Is there a catch to all of this? Yes, just one, the 686 chip is no longer |compatable with the older model chips, but then again, UNIX runs on anything. | |Once more, as a query to more informed readers of the net, I thought I saw |a 686 workstation made by MIPS, but I'm not sure, can someone verify this, |and/or tell me of workstations that you know contain the 686 chip? The 686 |seems be a good workstation for intensive graphics based applications. | |-- | |T. Tim Hsu UUCP ...pur-ee!ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | ARPA ajz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu |FAX 1 317 494 0566 BITNET xajz@PURCCVM I got this posting again for about the third time, hopefully there's only some problem with Usenet causing this posting to reappear rather than the same person restating incorrect things ;-) As has been mentioned before, T. Tim Hsu has incorrectly identified the i860 as the "686". Do a global replace of "686" in his message with "i860" and it makes more sense. Intel has semi-announced the "80586" and "80686" to the extent that they will be compatible with the 80386 and 80486. That's all I know about the 586/686; I'm a language person, the chip designers don't talk to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Plamondon, Intel Corp, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy, Hillsboro, OR 97124-6497 Internet: peter@langlab1.hf.intel.com +1 503-696-5219 UUNET : uunet!intelhf!langlab1!peter "I speak for myself, as best I can." UUCP : tektronix!psueea!foobar!langlab1.hf.intel.com!peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------