alanr@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Alan N Rovner) (08/02/90)
I ordered my AMD coprocessor a couple weeks ago and recently received it. It seems to work fine, no problems. It comes with a disk with some bench- mark programs on them and yes the 287 dramatically improves the run time. But I have a question for you netlanders. One of my co-workers insists that AMD is having suit brought against them by Intel for selling this chip as a bonafide 287. My buddy and supposedly Intel claim this chip uses an old version of the 287 microcode that isn't the same as the current Intel version and Intel is upset. Anybody have any info on this? Though the chip seems to work fine, enquiring minds want to know. Al Rovner Tektronix Inc. Vancouver, Wash.
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (08/03/90)
alanr@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Alan N Rovner) <9638@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> : | But I have a question for you netlanders. One of my co-workers insists that | AMD is having suit brought against them by Intel for selling this chip as | a bonafide 287. My buddy and supposedly Intel claim this chip uses an old | version of the 287 microcode that isn't the same as the current Intel | version and Intel is upset. The AMD chip is claimed to use exactly the microcode that Intel uses/developed for their 80287 chip, as licensed from them by AMD. I haven't heard any claims that the code in question is inferior --- it it were, I imagine Intel wouldn't care so much. My understanding is that Intel claims that AMD's license to the microcode does not include rights to public distribution (i.e. resale). AMD claims their license does cover this. An article I read did mention that both parties agreed not to involve any third-parties, like customers, in any retroactive litigation; nobody wants to turn off potential buyers.