whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) (05/16/91)
If you have been following the threads on the 486sx you have probably heard alot of negative response to Intel's market ploys. Even though I'm sure some of the response has gotten back to Intel, they obviously are not concerned with their credibility if they are making statements like this one printed Computer Reseller News, May 6 1991: According to David House, president of Intel's Microcomputer Components Group in Santa Clara, .... In addition, the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. The rate of change from 386-based systems to 486sx-based systems is expected to occur rapidly. Sure it will occur rapidly with statements like that! Maybe I'm jumping the gun in accusing Intel, but is there any objective evidence to substantiate this claim? Does anyone else have an idea as to the performance difference between the 486sx-20 and the 386-33?
lair@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scott A. Laird) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.210339.17118@unlv.edu> whitney@jimi.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: >If you have been following the threads on the 486sx you have probably >heard alot of negative response to Intel's market ploys. Even though I'm >sure some of the response has gotten back to Intel, they obviously are >not concerned with their credibility if they are making statements >like this one printed Computer Reseller News, May 6 1991: > > >According to David House, president of Intel's Microcomputer >Components Group in Santa Clara, > > .... In addition, the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater >performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. The rate of change from >386-based systems to 486sx-based systems is expected to occur rapidly. > > >Sure it will occur rapidly with statements like that! Maybe I'm >jumping the gun in accusing Intel, but is there any objective evidence >to substantiate this claim? Does anyone else have an idea as to the >performance difference between the 486sx-20 and the 386-33? I believe the 'actual' performance difference, running DOS apps, between a 386-33 and a 486-25 is about 10-20%, sometimes much higher, depending on what is does. The normal figure is 10%-20%, though. At that, a 386-*25* should be able to outperform the 486sx. Running 32-bit apps, the 486sx should be faster, from what I've read, but I'd take a 386-40 over it any day, even if Intel made them both. Of course, Intel doesn't, and that's why we have a 486SX. Now where's that am486? Scott. -- Scott A. Laird | Any semblance of the above to anything is purely lair@midway.uchicago.edu | coincidental, as it was the result of an infinite The University of Chicago | number of monkeys sneaking in to use my computer | for the afternoon.
rich@aoa.UUCP (Rich Snow) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May15.210339.17118@unlv.edu> whitney@jimi.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: >If you have been following the threads on the 486sx you have probably >heard alot of negative response to Intel's market ploys. > trade article: > > .... In addition, the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater >performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. The rate of change from >386-based systems to 486sx-based systems is expected to occur rapidly. > >Does anyone else have an idea as to the >performance difference between the 486sx-20 and the 386-33? They could be comparing a 486 using the builtin numeric coprocessor to a 386 without a numeric coprocessor. Legitimate comparison, but not likely that we'll see the performance benefit unless our swr happens to use the coprocessor! (In fairness, 486 swr will use it more since it's always there...) -Rich -- * Rich Snow AOA-----------------* * (617)864-0201 * rich@aoa.utc.com * aoa!rich@bbn.com
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (05/23/91)
>In article <1991May15.210339.17118@unlv.edu> whitney@jimi.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: >[trade article:] > .... In addition, the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater >performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. This could be true. A 486 does between 2 and 3 times as much work per cycle as a 386, so a 20MHz 486 is analogous to a 40-50MHz 386. In real systems, of course, memory system delays and I/O will have a big effect. I recently swapped a 25 MHz 386 motherboard for a 25 MHz 486. It's a lot faster, but it's no factor of three, since I still have the same old screen and disk controllers. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl Cheap oil is an oxymoron.
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (05/24/91)
In article <1561@aoa.UUCP> rich@aoa.utc.com (Rich Snow) writes: >In article <1991May15.210339.17118@unlv.edu> whitney@jimi.cs.unlv.edu >>If you have been following the threads on the 486sx you have probably >>heard alot of negative response to Intel's market ploys. >trade article: >> .... In addition, the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater >>performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. >>Does anyone else have an idea as to the >>performance difference between the 486sx-20 and the 386-33? >They could be comparing a 486 using the builtin numeric coprocessor >to a 386 without a numeric coprocessor. The NEW 486-sx is a full 486 with the coprocessor EXCLUDED. Several trade journals have had detailed technical articles about how much better and faster the 486 is in a system. In making the 486, several improvements to the 386 microcode were made (much in the same way that the v20 & 8088 compared) which speeds up the system. Then, several components other than the 80386 & 80387 were included in the 486. This resulted in less cpu handshaking with peripheral control chips. Even when the coprocessor is removed (as in the 486 SX) this reduced handshaking and time decreased op times (effectively) increase system performance. I won't go into the 40% figure (other than I can't) but to say that as most vendors are doing, they have taken one of a small number of situations to calculate 'throughput'. In the real world, you'd NEVER see 40%, but the difference is there. I have 25 Mhz 386's, 33 Mhz 386's, & 25 Mhz 486's. The 486 is faster in every cpu benchmark than either. In a real world number I'd hesitate to say, but would guess at about 10% to %15, maybe as high as 25%. I however, give intel great credit for the 486 chip. This new chip will provide (soon) cheap 486 products. It basically will drop the 386 to 286 prices or below, and really squeeze down the market. However, after you have a cheap clone 486sx system, you can add a coprocessor at anytime, simply by replacing the 486sx with a 486-dx (or whatever they call it,..,.). On the repair front, it allows me to keep a fairly cheap 486 sx in stock at an affordable price for system repair/diagnosis. If a 486 fries, I can pop in the 486 sx, and order a replacement, allowing the system to return to service (basically, with obvious limitations...) immediately..... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (05/24/91)
In article ... I say >In article <1561@aoa.UUCP> rich@aoa.utc.com (Rich Snow) writes: >>In article <1991May15.210339.17118@unlv.edu> whitney@jimi.cs.unlv.edu >>>..trade article..the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater >>>performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. >>>performance difference between the 486sx-20 and the 386-33? > The NEW 486-sx is a full 486 with the coprocessor EXCLUDED. >...after you have a cheap clone 486sx system, you can add a coprocessor >simply by replacing the 486sx with a 486-dx... I have just received email indicating a claim that the new intel 486-sx will not be pin compatible with existing 486's. The source wasn't intel, so I don't know... If anybody has published or 'good' information regarding final production, customer available 486-sx's NOT being pin compatible. Please post the info and references. I'll send a message to intel, but since it is not a customer available production part -- today -- I don't think they will make any comment. al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) (05/24/91)
From article <1991May23.143329.20564@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>, by johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine): >>In article <1991May15.210339.17118@unlv.edu> whitney@jimi.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: >>[trade article:] >> .... In addition, the 20Mhz 486sx chip delivers a 40 percent greater >>performance than the 33Mhz 386 processor. > > This could be true. A 486 does between 2 and 3 times as much work per > Not necessarily so... if I remember correctly, a recent bench test of 25MHz 486's in PC Magazine showed a 10% - 15% overall improvement on a mixed instruction set test over a 33MHz 386. That doesn't seem like good deal considering the price difference. > -- > John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 > johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl > Cheap oil is an oxymoron. -- Shane Bouslough | ...!rutgers!mcdhup!inferno!shane 516-467-0500 Periphonics Corp. | Ride Bike! 4000 Veterans Hwy. | "We're talking Mega-Ecstasy-Bliss!!!" Bohemia, NY 11716 | -David Lister, Red Dwarf
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/25/91)
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > The NEW 486-sx is a full 486 with the coprocessor EXCLUDED. Several trade The 486sx is only rated at 20 MHz. If it ran faster, it would overlap market segment-wise with the 486dx-25, and Intel would never let that happen. Of course, we will now see two postings a week in this group about pushing their 486-sx to 25 MHz and where to buy a 25 MHz crystal and how you could burn out the chip if you run it for too long at high speed, just like a car. Ever thought about whether these chip pushers would have hot-rodded cars in an earlier time? >prices or below, and really squeeze down the market. However, after you have >a cheap clone 486sx system, you can add a coprocessor at anytime, simply by >replacing the 486sx with a 486-dx (or whatever they call it,..,.). On the No, you can't do that. Intel wants to make sure people pay a premium for coprocessors, so the 486sx has a different pinout from the 486dx and you can't just drop it in. Furthermore, the 487sx has yet another different pinout so you can't drop that in either. This is called intentional incompatibility. -- The media is in the business of distorting people's perception of reality, by emphasising the out of the ordinary.
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (05/25/91)
In article <1991May24.152912.1601@rodan.acs.syr.edu> you write: > I have just received email indicating a claim that the new intel 486-sx >will not be pin compatible with existing 486's. ... Given the existence of the so-called 487SX, the 486SX cannot be pin compatible with a 486. Remember that the 487SX is in fact an entire 486 which takes over from the 486SX; you could probably throw away the 486SX when you install a 487SX. But, the 487SX is very expensive, considerably more than a real 486. If the 486SX were pin compatible with the 486, then one could skip the overpriced 487SX and instead install a real 486 to get floating point. I expect we should be seeing 486 to 486SX adapter sockets soon. I'd also hope but not expect that board vendors that use the 486SX would not put on a 487SX socket but rather a real 486 socket. There's no reason that they have to cooperate in Intel's "value pricing" shenanigans. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
burkey@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Michael Burkey) (05/25/91)
That 10-15% difference isn't the entire story. The 486-25 has a built in math coprocessor and and 8K internal ram cache. These and the speed difference make a 486-25 essentially cheaper than a 386-33 with coprocessor. (and much faster) I am getting good 386-40 boards for $625 and good 486-25 boards for $1015. $400 is not really that big a price difference when the coprocessor is counted. For that matter the 486-33 is only $1235. It is a good 25% faster than the 486-25. Wait til the 486-50 starts hitting in force -- that sucker is FAST!! M Burkey
peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu) (05/26/91)
In article <9105241448.AA14412@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >In article <1991May24.152912.1601@rodan.acs.syr.edu> you write: >> I have just received email indicating a claim that the new intel 486-sx >>will not be pin compatible with existing 486's. ... The latest issue of PC Magazine confirms this. >Given the existence of the so-called 487SX, the 486SX cannot be pin >compatible with a 486. Remember that the 487SX is in fact an entire 486 >which takes over from the 486SX; you could probably throw away the 486SX when >you install a 487SX. But, the 487SX is very expensive, considerably more >than a real 486. If the 486SX were pin compatible with the 486, then one >could skip the overpriced 487SX and instead install a real 486 to get >floating point. The 486sx has one extra pin than a 486dx. That one extra pin will be used to deactivate the chip. When the 487sx is plugged in, it will deactivate the 486sx and take over everything itself. The 486sx itself has the math co-processing stuff, but is deactivated at the factory. Apparently this was the most cost efficient way to produce the chip. :( >Regards, >John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl PQ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Quien? peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu Peter K. Wu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) (05/29/91)
When I posted the first article concerning Intel's claims on 486sx-20 performance, I was only skeptical, but I just read the first 486sx/486dx/386dx performance comparison's from an unbiased source (PC Magazine), and it does not do much to defend Intel's credibility. I really want to believe Intel, so if anybody can explain why these PC Mag benchmarks are so low, please save me from distrusting ANOTHER manufacturer. Just to recap, Intel claims the 486sx CPU is 40% faster than a 386DX-33. From PC Mag June 11: '..even though our tests use 32 BIT INSTRUCTIONS, the faster operating speeds of the 386-33 and the 386-40 propel these chips PAST the 486sx.' It turns out that the AM 386-40 was actually 32% FASTER than the best 486-sx machine they tested when running a 386 instruction mix, and the 386-33 was 7% faster. Keep in mind this is a CPU only benchmark and does not average in disk I/O, graphics performance, etc. Here is the Intel justification for this: (PC Mag June 11) 'It's because DOS's 8-bit addressing limitations cause overhead as instructions are sent in 8-bit segments and must be converted into 32 bits and then back to 8-bit segments.' Yeah right. Even though the above statement does not make sense, let's just pretend it does. Even if it was true, can it explain their 47 percent error (claimed + 40%, actual - 7%) ? Not to mention the excuse for the slowness was address translation overhead, which they claim the 486 is SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER AT because of the more tightly integrated MMU! I have no logical explaination for this, and if anyone else does, I will rescend my accusation of Intel lying.
peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu) (05/30/91)
Oops. I made a mistake concerning the extra pin of the 486sx. Just shows you that one should double check before posting .. :( The 486sx has 160 pins. The 487sx has 161 pins. The 486sx is a 486DX with the FPU disabled. The 487sx is a modified 486DX, which has special logic in the chip to override the 486sx. The extra pin that it has is to send the "knock out punch" to the 486sx. The 486sx costs less than a 386-40. It has a on-chip 8K cache and a burst mode like the 486dx. The 487sx though, costs $799. PQ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Quien? peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu Peter K. Wu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May25.192449.27061@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu) writes: >In article <9105241448.AA14412@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >>In article <1991May24.152912.1601@rodan.acs.syr.edu> you write: >>> I have just received email indicating a claim that the new intel 486-sx >>>will not be pin compatible with existing 486's. ... > >The latest issue of PC Magazine confirms this. > >>Given the existence of the so-called 487SX, the 486SX cannot be pin >>compatible with a 486. Remember that the 487SX is in fact an entire 486 >>which takes over from the 486SX; you could probably throw away the 486SX when >>you install a 487SX. But, the 487SX is very expensive, considerably more >>than a real 486. If the 486SX were pin compatible with the 486, then one >>could skip the overpriced 487SX and instead install a real 486 to get >>floating point. > >The 486sx has one extra pin than a 486dx. That one extra pin will be >used to deactivate the chip. When the 487sx is plugged in, it will >deactivate the 486sx and take over everything itself. The 486sx >itself has the math co-processing stuff, but is deactivated at the >factory. Apparently this was the most cost efficient way to produce >the chip. :( Hmm. I wonder if you could just buy the 487. * * * * * * * ======================= Meir Green * * * * * * * * ======================= mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu * * * * * * * ======================= N2JPG
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (05/30/91)
In article mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir) writes: >In article peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu) writes: >>In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >>>In article <1991May24.152912.1601@rodan.acs.syr.edu> you write: >>>> I have just received email indicating a claim that the new intel 486-sx >>>>will not be pin compatible with existing 486's. ... >> >>The latest issue of PC Magazine confirms this. >> >>>Given the existence of the so-called 487SX, the 486SX cannot be pin >>>compatible with a 486. Remember that the 487SX is in fact an entire 486 >> >>The 486sx has one extra pin than a 486dx. That one extra pin will be >>used to deactivate the chip. When the 487sx is plugged in, it will >>deactivate the 486sx and take over everything itself. The 486sx > >Hmm. I wonder if you could just buy the 487. Considering street price for a full up 486 is about US$700-800, why would anyone want to pay $300 for the 486SX, plus $700 for the 487SX? Personally, I think if Intel can produce a i486, disable the FPU, and sell it for $250, while selling a i486 without disabling the FPU for $800 (whether they call it an i486 or an i487SX is academic), that the whole world should punish Intel for their arrogance by refusing to buy any i486 product whatsoever. Do they think we're stupid. I wonder what's involved with re-enabling the FPU. If I could buy an i486SX for $250, enable the FPU and sell it for $800, I would. Wouldn't you? What this whole thing really means, is that Intel can produce and make a profit selling a i486 at $250. They're gouging those of us who buy the i486 an extra $550. That's inexcusable. So, don't buy an i486, buy an AMD386-40. Buy Motorola. Buy anything else. Just don't buy Intel. The opinions expressed above are strictly my own. -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov No flashy sig. No clever quips. No famous quotes. This space for rent.
ldstern@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Larry Stern) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.153843.27750@unlv.edu> whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: > > ...deletions... > >From PC Mag June 11: '..even though our tests use 32 BIT INSTRUCTIONS, >the faster operating speeds of the 386-33 and the 386-40 propel these >chips PAST the 486sx.' > >It turns out that the AM 386-40 was actually 32% FASTER than the best >486-sx machine they tested when running a 386 instruction mix, and the >386-33 was 7% faster. Keep in mind this is a CPU only benchmark and >does not average in disk I/O, graphics performance, etc. > > ...deletions... > It seems your first impressions have just been confirmed by Byte Magazine as well. The cover story in the new June issue is entitled "The 486SX Falls Short" and arrives at the same conclusions as PC Mag. The editorial is also based on this issue. -- Larry Stern LDSTERN@RODAN.ACS.SYR.EDU
rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) (05/30/91)
In <1991May29.212337.7684@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >Considering street price for a full up 486 is about US$700-800, why >would anyone want to pay $300 for the 486SX, plus $700 for the 487SX? >Personally, I think if Intel can produce a i486, disable the FPU, and sell >it for $250, while selling a i486 without disabling the FPU for $800 >(whether they call it an i486 or an i487SX is academic), that the whole >world should punish Intel for their arrogance by refusing to buy any >i486 product whatsoever. >Do they think we're stupid. >I wonder what's involved with re-enabling the FPU. If I could buy an >i486SX for $250, enable the FPU and sell it for $800, I would. Wouldn't >you? What this whole thing really means, is that Intel can produce and >make a profit selling a i486 at $250. They're gouging those of us who >buy the i486 an extra $550. That's inexcusable. You are assuming that the FPU that was disabled was good, especially since the coprocessor part of the chip takes a a larger portion of the area of the chip than the 486sx part, it means that any error in production is more likely to be in that area of the chip. Since they also will probably not be able to meet the demand for the 486 it would also not make sense to go disabling chips that could be sold for $800 so they could sell them for $250. It probably wasn't, since using processor chips with bad coprocessors would increase their yield and therefore their profile from a single run. Also you are assuming that everyone wants a coprocessor, and much of the market is made up of people running things like WP that need a fast machine and lots of memory, but have no use for the coprocessor at all. That is what they are targeting with th i486sx, is the people that are not likely to need a coprocessor, but if they get a i486sx and later find that they need a coprocessor they have the option if they don't want to upgrade their machine, but with the 486sx the entire objective is to never get a coprocessor, it is for people that have no use for one, from this standpoint it makes sense. -- Rogerhef@Matt.ksu.ksu.edu Roger Heflin EECE Grad Student (913) 532-5600
jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.212337.7684@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: [Stuff Deleted] >Do they think we're stupid. > >I wonder what's involved with re-enabling the FPU. If I could buy an >i486SX for $250, enable the FPU and sell it for $800, I would. Wouldn't >you? What this whole thing really means, is that Intel can produce and >make a profit selling a i486 at $250. They're gouging those of us who >buy the i486 an extra $550. That's inexcusable. Well......you'd need a silicon fabrication house, or some really really small soldering irons. I'd bet that Intel modifies the 486dx mask to fabricate the 486sx. The bulk of the fpu layout is probably still intact but not used in the 486sx. This would be easier than generating a completely new layout for the sx part. This also means that less of the 486sx parts will be culled out, since the complexity of the die is lower than that of the dx die. With higher yields, the cost of the part should be lower. But I agree with you, I'm not shedding any tears for Intel. The sx has one purpose, and that is to kill AMD's 386 (Intel's as well) sales. >So, don't buy an i486, buy an AMD386-40. Buy Motorola. Buy anything >else. Just don't buy Intel. > Agreed, I'm still waiting for the AMD 486..... Terry Jones {rutgers,uunet}!acsu.buffalo.edu!jones SUNY at Buffalo ECE Dept. or: rutgers!ub!jones, jones@acsu.buffalo.edu
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.153843.27750@unlv.edu> whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: >When I posted the first article concerning Intel's claims on 486sx-20 >performance, I was only skeptical, but I just read the first >486sx/486dx/386dx performance comparison's from an unbiased source (PC >Magazine), and it does not do much to defend Intel's credibility. (specs omitted - wjv) Benchmarks in Byte magazine come up with the same conclusions. Not often that these two magazines agree that closely.; bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: ...!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.212337.7684@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >Considering street price for a full up 486 is about US$700-800, why >would anyone want to pay $300 for the 486SX, plus $700 for the 487SX? The theory is that a lot of people do not nead the extra math capabilities, and so would not need to pay for a completely functioning chip. Having the 487sx allows for an upgrade path still. >Personally, I think if Intel can produce a i486, disable the FPU, and sell >it for $250, while selling a i486 without disabling the FPU for $800 >(whether they call it an i486 or an i487SX is academic), that the whole >world should punish Intel for their arrogance by refusing to buy any >i486 product whatsoever. Actually, I believe the 486sx originally came about as a way to recoup some of the expense of all of the bad chips they had sitting around. You know, the early release 486 chips were just fine except for problems with the FPU, so if they then can hit a spot with a laser and diable the fpu completely, they can sell off all of their old wafers without a problem. It also makes it easier for checking. When the chip comes out of the plant, it is tested, if the math has problems, but nothing else, burn it and sell it as a 486sx. Wim -- | wbonner@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu |P.O.Box 2062cs |The Loft BBS |27313853@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu|Pullman WA 99165|Currently down for the summer. | 72561.3135@CompuServe.com |(509)334-4626 |USR HST Dual Standard HST/V.32
oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (05/30/91)
What follows are guesses, and probably not good ones at that. A guess would be that the FPU adds quite a bit of complexity to the chip and causes a number of chips to be rejected on QC. If you produce a version which has the FPU disabled, you can use the same chip masks as the regular chips and if the FPU fails then it becomes a 486sx. The different packages are just marketing, of course. But remember, INTEL has always been good at marketing... How else would we have bought the 8088, the 8086, and the '286.... bruce -- Bruce O'Neel oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov NASA/GSFC/STX/Code 664
dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) (05/30/91)
In a previous article, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) says: >I wonder what's involved with re-enabling the FPU. If I could buy an >i486SX for $250, enable the FPU and sell it for $800, I would. Wouldn't >you? What this whole thing really means, is that Intel can produce and >make a profit selling a i486 at $250. They're gouging those of us who >buy the i486 an extra $550. That's inexcusable. The story that I read in this week's info world is that the 486sx chips are the 486 chips that fail the quality control standards. What they are doing right now is scooping up all of the 486 chips with defective fpu's and having a fire sale. However, I have also read that intel is planning on purposely making the injured chips in the future. -- Douglas Bell "... but that's not important, that's just numbers." dab6@po.cwru.edu Dr. Wu, Math Professor
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (05/30/91)
In an article rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) writes: >In an article I wrote: > >>Considering street price for a full up 486 is about US$700-800, why >>would anyone want to pay $300 for the 486SX, plus $700 for the 487SX? > >>Personally, I think if Intel can produce a i486, disable the FPU, and sell >>it for $250, while selling a i486 without disabling the FPU for $800 >>(whether they call it an i486 or an i487SX is academic), that the whole >>world should punish Intel for their arrogance by refusing to buy any >>i486 product whatsoever. > >You are assuming that the FPU that was disabled was good, especially since the >coprocessor part of the chip takes a a larger portion of the area of the chip >than the 486sx part, it means that any error in production is more likely to >be in that area of the chip. Since they also will probably not be able to >meet the demand for the 486 it would also not make sense to go disabling chips >that could be sold for $800 so they could sell them for $250. It probably >wasn't, since using processor chips with bad coprocessors would increase >their yield and therefore their profile from a single run. >Also you are assuming that everyone wants a coprocessor, and >much of the market is made up of people running things like WP that need a >fast machine and lots of memory, but have no use for the coprocessor at >all. That is what they are targeting with th i486sx, is the people that >are not likely to need a coprocessor, but if they get a i486sx and later >find that they need a coprocessor they have the option if they don't want >to upgrade their machine, but with the 486sx the entire objective is to >never get a coprocessor, it is for people that have no use for one, from >this standpoint it makes sense. Well, Intel certainly isn't advertising that this is what they're doing! If anything, they're doing just the opposite. Obviously it doesn't make sense to disable a perfectly good FPU. Does disabling a bad FPU make sense either? Whether the FPU is good or not, Intel is saying that the chip can be made, and sold at a profit for $250. It costs *them* the same to produce, per unit, whether the FPU passes QC or not. Up to now, buyers of full-up i486s have been carrying the cost of the failed units in the price of the good units. Is Intel going to reduce the price of good units now that bad units can be unloaded in the bargain basement? Are they going to give me a refund on the i486 I already bought? Of course they're not, on both counts. As for blanket statements like "...some people have no use for one..." This is patently false. Fifteen years ago, people said the same thing about a personal/home/desktop computer! Ten years ago, they said it about hard disk drives and GUIs. (Keep in mind that we're talking micro-processors here, not mini or main frame computers.) Five years ago they said it about... Well, I think you get the point. From a purely economic standpoint, everyone should have a FPU, but everyone won't *until* the marginal utility of having one is greater than the cost of aquiring one. Said another way, they won't get one until it starts costing them money by not having it. If FPUs were $5, there'd be no reason not to have one; even to do word processing. Don't think that GUI, WYSIWYG, or even conventional word processors can't or won't benefit from a FPU. The above are my opinions alone, and do not reflect those of my employer. -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov No flashy sig. No clever quips. No famous quotes. This space for rent.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/31/91)
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >Whether the FPU is good or not, Intel is saying that the chip can be made, >and sold at a profit for $250. It costs *them* the same to produce, per unit, >whether the FPU passes QC or not. Up to now, buyers of full-up i486s have >been carrying the cost of the failed units in the price of the good units. >Is Intel going to reduce the price of good units now that bad units can >be unloaded in the bargain basement? Are they going to give me a refund >on the i486 I already bought? Of course they're not, on both counts. An interesting data point is that the 487sx, which is simply a 486dx which runs at a lower clock rate (20 MHz vs 25 MHz), costs quite a bit more than the 486dx, about $799 vs around $500. What does this mean? -- The media is in the business of distorting people's perception of reality, by emphasising the out of the ordinary.
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.213810.27325@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >An interesting data point is that the 487sx, which is simply a 486dx which >runs at a lower clock rate (20 MHz vs 25 MHz), costs quite a bit more >than the 486dx, about $799 vs around $500. What does this mean? The article in Byte, if I recall correctly, said the i487, not only gives you the FPU but is able to run at 25mhz. -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov No flashy sig. No clever quips. No famous quotes. This space for rent.
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (05/31/91)
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: (stuff deleted) >replacing the 486sx with a 486-dx (or whatever they call it,..,.). On the >repair front, it allows me to keep a fairly cheap 486 sx in stock at an >affordable price for system repair/diagnosis. If a 486 fries, I can pop in >the 486 sx, and order a replacement, allowing the system to return to >service (basically, with obvious limitations...) immediately..... Note that the 486sx runs at 20 mhz. It may (probably won't) not work at 25 or 33 mhz clock of the original system. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: feustel@netcom.com or feustel@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) (05/31/91)
In <1991May30.164751.16585@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >Well, Intel certainly isn't advertising that this is what they're doing! >If anything, they're doing just the opposite. Obviously it doesn't make >sense to disable a perfectly good FPU. Does disabling a bad FPU make >sense either? >Whether the FPU is good or not, Intel is saying that the chip can be made, >and sold at a profit for $250. It costs *them* the same to produce, per unit, >whether the FPU passes QC or not. Up to now, buyers of full-up i486s have >been carrying the cost of the failed units in the price of the good units. >Is Intel going to reduce the price of good units now that bad units can >be unloaded in the bargain basement? Are they going to give me a refund >on the i486 I already bought? Of course they're not, on both counts. >As for blanket statements like "...some people have no use for one..." >This is patently false. Fifteen years ago, people said the same thing >about a personal/home/desktop computer! Ten years ago, they said it about >hard disk drives and GUIs. (Keep in mind that we're talking micro-processors >here, not mini or main frame computers.) Five years ago they said it about... >Well, I think you get the point. >From a purely economic standpoint, everyone should have a FPU, but everyone >won't *until* the marginal utility of having one is greater than the cost of >aquiring one. Said another way, they won't get one until it starts costing >them money by not having it. If FPUs were $5, there'd be no reason not to >have one; even to do word processing. Don't think that GUI, WYSIWYG, or >even conventional word processors can't or won't benefit from a FPU. >The above are my opinions alone, and do not reflect those of my employer. The CPU costs them almost nothing to manufacture. There are trying to rucpu massive design costs, think about how much work was required to design such a chip 20-100 engineers for 1-2 man-years each. Several millions of dollars. They are like all business their objective is price it as high as possible and recup their design costs as fast as possible. THey can't say The chip cost me $20 to make, and the design cost 100million, so I will sell it for $40. Assuming this they would have to sell 5million parts to recup their design costs. The production costs are a trivial part of the cost. The design it were the real expense it, and that is what the price is based on, they can disalbe the bad FPU and sell them at any price, but they prefer to put the price as high as possible to recup the design costs as fast as possible, since they can never know when their chip will become obselete. Selling the bad FPU's makes them recup their design costs faster and that is their goal. D D set the price as high as possible to minimize there time to recupe their costs -- Rogerhef@Matt.ksu.ksu.edu Roger Heflin EECE Grad Student (913) 532-5600
rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) (05/31/91)
In <1991May31.034938.21083@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin) writes: >D >D >set the price as high as possible to minimize there time to recupe their costs I seemed to have had a disagreement with vi and lost. Funny, it wasn't on my screen. Ignore it. -- Rogerhef@Matt.ksu.ksu.edu Roger Heflin EECE Grad Student (913) 532-5600
gwoho@nntp-server.caltech.edu (g liu) (05/31/91)
>>>used to deactivate the chip. When the 487sx is plugged in, it will >>>deactivate the 486sx and take over everything itself. The 486sx >> >>Hmm. I wonder if you could just buy the 487. >Considering street price for a full up 486 is about US$700-800, why >would anyone want to pay $300 for the 486SX, plus $700 for the 487SX? >Personally, I think if Intel can produce a i486, disable the FPU, and sell >it for $250, while selling a i486 without disabling the FPU for $800 >(whether they call it an i486 or an i487SX is academic), that the whole >world should punish Intel for their arrogance by refusing to buy any >i486 product whatsoever. it is not clear to me that they can make a profit selling 486 for $250. 1. it could be that they are not making a profit selling a 486sx for $250, they could be only trying to kill amd. 2. it could be that they sell 486s that do not pass fp tests or 25mhz, but 20mhz test as 486sx. i imagine they have as many defective chips as good chips. >Do they think we're stupid. >I wonder what's involved with re-enabling the FPU. If I could buy an >i486SX for $250, enable the FPU and sell it for $800, I would. Wouldn't >you? What this whole thing really means, is that Intel can produce and >make a profit selling a i486 at $250. They're gouging those of us who >buy the i486 an extra $550. That's inexcusable. >So, don't buy an i486, buy an AMD386-40. Buy Motorola. Buy anything >else. Just don't buy Intel. if i had a choice between a 386-33 or a 486sx, i'd chose the 486sx because: 1. they are about the same speed. perhaps the 486 is a little slower because the software i'm running will bust the cache often. 2. i imagine it would be safer to run a 486sx at 30 mhz than a 386 at 50 mhz. i would not doubt that the 486sx is make with the same process as the 486-33. and only the fp test failed. 3. the 486sx at $250 would be cheeper than a 386-33, i think. >The opinions expressed above are strictly my own. >--
shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) (05/31/91)
From article <1991May24.152912.1601@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, by amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen): > > I have just received email indicating a claim that the new intel 486-sx > will not be pin compatible with existing 486's. The source wasn't intel, > so I don't know... If anybody has published or 'good' information regarding > final production, customer available 486-sx's NOT being pin compatible. > Please post the info and references. > I think the latest issue of Byte (with the AMD386-40 & Intel 486 on the cover) or the May 20th edition of PC Week talk about it. One of those references says the pinouts are different which is why AMD may still have a competitive edge over Intel since manufacturers can use their existing board designs. > Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University > InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu > Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE -- Periphonics Corp. | Shane Bouslough is: shane@inferno.peri.com Ride bike! 4000 Veterans Hwy. | Bohemia, NY 11716 | "Too slow, Chicken Marango! Too slow for *this* cat!" 516-467-0500 | -Cat, Red Dwarf
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May30.164751.16585@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov>, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: > Whether the FPU is good or not, Intel is saying that the chip can be made, > and sold at a profit for $250. It costs *them* the same to produce, per unit, > whether the FPU passes QC or not. Yes, it costs the same per _produced_ chip, but not the same per _working_ chip. Since people are only interested in buying chips that work, Intel has to pay for the costs of all produced chips by selling the working chips. By blowing off the FPU, Intel can increase the ratio of working chips to produced chips, which means that the cost of the working chips (the chips that are sold) to be lower with the same profit per produced chip. Keep in mind that for chips of the nature of the 486, the yield rate (working / produced) is low, probably in the 10% range, so it's believable that dropping the FPU could double the yield. -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May30.213810.27325@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >An interesting data point is that the 487sx, which is simply a 486dx which >runs at a lower clock rate (20 MHz vs 25 MHz), costs quite a bit more >than the 486dx, about $799 vs around $500. What does this mean? It means that Intel is scared silly of the industry's upcoming move to the MIPS RISC chips, and is going to milk us for every single cent it can while it is still able to do so.
basker@diku.dk (Tom Thuneby) (06/01/91)
A lot of people seem to disagree about Intels reasons behind making the 486. I'd like to throw in my 'two cents' worth. Several people have pointed the following things out (I don't know if they're all facts; but it sounds OK to me): 1) The yield of a batch of 25 MHz 486's is around 14% 2) More than half of the silicon is used by the coprocessor 3) The coprocessor has a relatively high probability of errors 4) Some of the chips that fail a 25 Mhz test will not fail 20 Mhz 5) The coprocessor is disabled by removing its connection with the rest of the chip. Once the chip has been made, it is impossible to disable/reenable these connections. From these informations, the following picture appears: The yield of the 486sx is far better than that of the 486. A wild guess on my part is, that the percentage of failed chips is decreased by 1/3. This means a yield of 43% for the 486sx. Compare that to the 14% of the 486. The 486sx is NOT a 486 that has failed its coprocessor test. It's a 486 with a disabled coprocessor, that has only been tested for 20 MHz. It is utterly impossible (with the technology of today) to re-enable the coprocessor, even if it would have functioned perfectly. End of reasoning, my own thoughts follow. I suspect, that the pin incompatibility (and thus the need for a 487) is a marketing issue. When comparing the cost of the 486sx to the cost of the 386-33, one should also consider the cost of external cache, memory, and the like. A 33 Mhz motherboard (without processor) costs somewhat more than a 20 Mhz motherboard. Thus, the total cost of the computer might be less for a 486sx-based system. Constructive criticism appreciated. I apologize for errors in spelling and grammer; English is not my native tongue. Tom Thuneby (basker@diku.dk)
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) (06/02/91)
In article <1991May31.183111.16505@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes: > >It means that Intel is scared silly of the industry's upcoming move to >the MIPS RISC chips, and is going to milk us for every single cent it >can while it is still able to do so. How does the i486 compare with the 20 - 30 MIPS of the SUN Sparc chips? How about the MIPS chips? -- bill@unixland.natick.ma.us The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill bill@unixland ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (06/02/91)
In article <1991Jun2.030215.11584@unixland.natick.ma.us>, bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes: |> In article <1991May31.183111.16505@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes: |> > |> >It means that Intel is scared silly of the industry's upcoming move to |> >the MIPS RISC chips, and is going to milk us for every single cent it |> >can while it is still able to do so. |> |> How does the i486 compare with the 20 - 30 MIPS of the SUN Sparc chips? |> How about the MIPS chips? |> Hi Bill :-) and everyone, I try to stay objective. Let's use i486 33Mhz as baseline for the CISC side, and IBM POWER archecture as the RISC side baseline. Assuming that everything runs in memory, then i486 33 Mhz offers you about 21 MIPS and less then 2 MegaFLOPS. Now IBM RISC POWERstation 320 20Mhz offers you 29.5 MIPS and 8.5 MFLOPS. So given enough memory to both, i486 33Mhz should be able to keep up for integer intensive operations. In fact, i486, due to it's more frugal use of memory and CISC, I suspect sometimes it may even win in a few areas (based on my past experience running 386 UNIX on my 386 box) In addition, If you haven't used a RISC machine, I assure you that the first time you are made aware of the disk file size and the output of size(1), you WILL feel Dismayed! SPARC executables so far in general are smaller than IBM POWER archecture's. But both are FAT! Implication is that if you use RISC, you need both more memory and disk space. The typical rule, 30% more than their CISC counterpart, is a understatement. The more, the better. 16 Megs seem to be abs necessary for IBM POWERstations vs 8 Megs for an. i486/386 box running X windows X11R4 on top of a 386 UNIX. Sun SPARC is no better in memory usuage, all our SUN SPARCs equipped with 8 Megs swap like crazy, really disgusting :-( Floating point operation wise, i486 is buried in the dust. No way it can win! even with all goodies from Cyrix, IIT, Weitek and friends. No way! Unless they also go RISC too. RISC 600 320 is the bottom end of POWER line and at 20Mhz already offers 8.5 MFLOPS, the newer 320H offer 13.5MFLOPS. CISC stuff will be *REALLY* hard pressed to squeeze out such a outstanding FP performace. I have a suspecision that Intel CISC machines can best be used as general purpose computers. They are popular, lots third party components, easy to configure, software availability is great, a combo really hard to beat by any RISC entry indeed. However, the prestigious Technical Workstations will always be dominated by RISC I guess. After all, most scientists/engineers crunch numbers, they are not going to do much with anything else. Remember even Intel had to venture into RISC and made this i860? And lot's people use it as graphic coprocessor or numerical coprocessor, why? RISC, => superior floating point performance (> 30 MegaFLOPS), that is. SUN SPARC 2 doesn't offer as good as floating point performance as either IBM POWER line or the newcomer HP 9000 series. The later is the newest screamer on the block and from what I know (from IBM inside info) that IBM Workstation Group is working overtime to try to top HP these days. (an IBM senior programmer told me that their face were green with envy these days seeing the blazingly fast X Window performance of HP 9000s :-) I love this :-) Competition is always good for customers :-) :-) :-) Later... Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (06/03/91)
In <1991Jun2.030215.11584@> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) >In <1991May31.183111.16505@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) >>It means that Intel is scared silly of the industry's upcoming move to >>the MIPS RISC chips, ... >How does the i486 compare with the 20 - 30 MIPS of the SUN Sparc chips? >How about the MIPS chips? It doesn't compare all that badly when corrected for clock differences. And if the rumoured reports on the 80586 are true (4 to 5 x increase in perf), the whole thing gets more clouded. The counter point is that RISC perf won't stand still either. But systems will (or have they already) get to a point were the typical application for a user level, is being held up by the user, not the system. I'd have to say that for most DOS direct applications, anything more than a 16 Mhz 80386 is a waste of money. In a windows environment, I'd say between 20 & 25 Mhz the same is true. That isn't to say that 'killer' 33 Mhz or 486 systems are a total waste, but to say that for most user applications (wordprocessing, spreadsheets, etc) the overall system performance increase is much less than the increase in money. That includes factors as disk i/o and user typing speed.... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
xtdn@levels.sait.edu.au (06/03/91)
oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes: > remember, INTEL has always been good at marketing... How else would we > have bought the 8088, the 8086, and the '286.... No. IBM made Intel what it is today. Had IBM continued with Motorola, the world would be a different place today. As it happens, IBM finally chose the chip that most closely matched their own technological superiority. For a late '60s computer, the PC was not bad. ;-) David Newall, 16:32:56.04, Tuesday, 1991 Phone: +61 8 344 2008 "Life is uncertain: Eat dessert first" E-mail: xtdn@lux.sait.edu.au
whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) (06/03/91)
>From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) > The counter point is that RISC perf won't stand still either. But systems >will (or have they already) get to a point were the typical application for >a user level, is being held up by the user, not the system. I'd have to say >that for most DOS direct applications, anything more than a 16 Mhz 80386 is >a waste of money. In a windows environment, I'd say between 20 & 25 Mhz the >same is true. WINDOWS 3.0 does not need speed past 25Mhz? What !?! 40Mhz is even too slow for Windows! Have you ever used Corel Draw? Ventura? Anything? Even with a (fast) graphics co-processor Windows is not too fast. >That isn't to say that 'killer' 33 Mhz or 486 systems are a >total waste, but to say that for most user applications (wordprocessing, >spreadsheets, etc) the overall system performance increase is much less >than the increase in money. That includes factors as disk i/o and user >typing speed.... >al People always underestimate the power required for these basic tasks. Let's just take word processing, that seems the simplest, and pair it with the fastest desktop computer in existence, the HP 9000 series. Overkill right? Imagine wp software that composes your document as you speak. Imagine wp software that has real grammar checking. Imagine not waiting to rasterize and print a 1200dpi page... All that has to happen is for this kind power to be affordable (which probably won't be long), and for software to be developed (maybe OS/2 5? :-]). Then Al, people will be waiting to buy 80 mips machines for their secretaries, let alone what they will buy for people who need "real power".
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (06/04/91)
In article <1991May29.153843.27750@unlv.edu> whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes: > > >When I posted the first article concerning Intel's claims on 486sx-20 >performance, I was only skeptical, but I just read the first >486sx/486dx/386dx performance comparison's from an unbiased source (PC >Magazine), and it does not do much to defend Intel's credibility. I >really want to believe Intel, so if anybody can explain why these PC >Mag benchmarks are so low, please save me from distrusting ANOTHER >manufacturer. > >[...] > > >Here is the Intel justification for this: (PC Mag June 11) 'It's >because DOS's 8-bit addressing limitations cause overhead as >instructions are sent in 8-bit segments and must be converted into 32 >bits and then back to 8-bit segments.' > >[...] > >I have no logical explaination for this, and if anyone else does, I >will rescend my accusation of Intel lying. The latest issue of Byte magazine also compares the 486sx to the 386dx...same results... In that issue, Fred Langa (editor) gives a reasonable explanation for Intel producing a brain-dead version of their chip...MARKET POSITION!!! Intel recently lost the legal battle to keep AMD from marketing their 386 clone...so what does Intel do??? produce an even better chip (is the 586 out yet???) nope, they create a brain-dead version of their current top-line chip (which AMD *hasn't* cloned yet) to compete with and eventually destroy the 386 based products (including the AMD386). The same thing happened with the 286...Intel had its 386 in production, and people started cloning the 286 chip...what does Intel do? produce a brain-dead version of the 386 to wipe out the 286 market... so you see boys and girls...the 486sx has NOTHING to do with providing you, the consumer, with a better product or lower prices...its an attempt to eliminate the competition!!!! John +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | John Burton | | G & A Technical Software | | jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov | | jcburt@cs.wm.edu | | | | Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those | | of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government| +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) (06/04/91)
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > It doesn't compare all that badly when corrected for clock differences. >And if the rumoured reports on the 80586 are true (4 to 5 x increase in perf), >the whole thing gets more clouded. > The counter point is that RISC perf won't stand still either. But systems >will (or have they already) get to a point were the typical application for >a user level, is being held up by the user, not the system. I'd have to say >that for most DOS direct applications, anything more than a 16 Mhz 80386 is >a waste of money. In a windows environment, I'd say between 20 & 25 Mhz the >same is true. That isn't to say that 'killer' 33 Mhz or 486 systems are a >total waste, but to say that for most user applications (wordprocessing, >spreadsheets, etc) the overall system performance increase is much less >than the increase in money. That includes factors as disk i/o and user >typing speed.... >al But software will not stand still, either. They keep adding new features, which often times use poor algorithms due to pressure to have a marketable product out the door ASAP. Good or poor, new features do more processing which takes more time. How about a wordprocessor that has an internal dictionary tree (more memory needed) that can instantly report spelling errors by a beep at the instant of the key stroke (more CPU cycles needed). Of course not everyone needs the killer systems, but even for wordprocessing in 2001, a 40 MHz system with 16 Megabytes will be "archaic" at best, and probably available as a complete system on on chip with integral display as the dedicated processor for a wristwatch. :-) -- /***************************************************************************\ / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \ \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! / \***************************************************************************/
shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) (06/05/91)
From article <1991May31.210116.16012@odin.diku.dk>, by basker@diku.dk (Tom Thuneby) speculates: > > Several people have pointed the following things out (I don't know > if they're all facts; but it sounds OK to me): > > 1) The yield of a batch of 25 MHz 486's is around 14% ??? > 2) More than half of the silicon is used by the coprocessor Not from the photos I've seen. The cache alone takes up a pretty big chunk. > 3) The coprocessor has a relatively high probability of errors Vs. what? > Tom Thuneby (basker@diku.dk) -- Periphonics Corp. | Shane Bouslough is: shane@inferno.peri.com Ride Bike! 4000 Veterans Hwy. | Bohemia, NY 11716 | "Too slow, Chicken Marango! Too slow for *this* cat!" 516-467-0500 | -Cat, Red Dwarf
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun2.041512.29546@leland.Stanford.EDU>, > SUN SPARC 2 doesn't offer as good as floating point performance as either > IBM POWER line or the newcomer HP 9000 series. The later is the newest > screamer on the block and from what I know (from IBM inside info) that > IBM Workstation Group is working overtime to try to top HP these days. > (an IBM senior programmer told me that their face were green with envy > these days seeing the blazingly fast X Window performance of HP 9000s :-) > > I love this :-) Competition is always good for customers :-) :-) :-) > > Later... > > Chin Fang > Mechanical Engineering Department > Stanford University > fangchin@leland.stanford.edu Just a point of notice for anyone who is interested. The Sparc 1, 1+ and IPC all use a floating point chip designed by Weitek. The new Sparc 2 no longer uses a Weitek chip. This could be why Weitek just came out with their own Sparc 2 compatible board. Also, for number crunching, RISC is always going to be much faster than CISC. This is why many printer manufacturers are talking about going over to RISC processors in laser printers, and RISC chips are so common on graphics accelerators. Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu P.S. Have you seen the new HP/Apollo workstations? Now there's fast!
basker@diku.dk (Tom Thuneby) (06/12/91)
I tried to mail, but the mail bounced. I'll post it instead in the hope that it will not annoy too many people :) shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) writes: >From article <1991May31.210116.16012@odin.diku.dk>, > by basker@diku.dk (Tom Thuneby) speculates: >> >> 1) The yield of a batch of 25 MHz 486's is around 14% > >??? What I ment was, that out of 100 chips on the wafers, only 14 chips actually function (at any reasonable frequency). I hope this is clearer. Another newsreader posted an article saying that 10% might be a more reasonable number. >> 2) More than half of the silicon is used by the coprocessor > >Not from the photos I've seen. The cache alone takes up a pretty big chunk. I do not recall any details from photos of the chip. However, if they use six transistors per bit in the cache, then the raw cache memory would take 192K transistors, or around 1/5th of the silicon. I don't know how much cache controller, address decorders and the like would take, but I don't think it would be quite as much. A little obnoxious remark (sorry, but I couldn't resist :) How do you know it was the cache that took that chunk of silicon? Couldn't it just as well have been the multiplication array of the coprocessor? I for one couldn't tell the two apart. End of remark. I was also surprised of a coprocessor of this size. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody told its size was, say 1/3rd or 1/4th of the silicon. But then I also heard that the 486 had floating-point performance somewhat superior to the 387. That would cost transistors. >> 3) The coprocessor has a relatively high probability of errors > >Vs. what? The original poster didn't mention that. I imagine that it's some sort of bugs-per-transistor measure. That's what I took it for, anyway. I'd like to know if you disagree with my estimate of the yield of the 486SX, or if you only disagree with the numbers upon which the estimate is based. I'd also like to know what numbers you believe is correct. Thank you for the criticism. Post or E-mail (or forget) a reply. Tom Thuneby (basker@diku.dk) P.S. >-- >Periphonics Corp. | Shane Bouslough is: shane@inferno.peri.com Ride Bike! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >4000 Veterans Hwy. | >Bohemia, NY 11716 | "Too slow, Chicken Marango! Too slow for *this* cat!" >516-467-0500 | -Cat, Red Dwarf I tried that address, but my mail bounced. Can you give me (us) another? Tom Thuneby
shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) (06/18/91)
From article <1991Jun11.214144.27150@odin.diku.dk>, basker@diku.dk (Tom Thuneby) takes me to task: > > I tried to mail, but the mail bounced. I'll post it instead in the > hope that it will not annoy too many people :) > > shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) writes: >>> 2) More than half of the silicon is used by the coprocessor >> >>Not from the photos I've seen. The cache alone takes up a pretty big chunk. > > I do not recall any details from photos of the chip. However, if > they use six transistors per bit in the cache, then the raw cache > memory would take 192K transistors, or around 1/5th of the silicon. > I don't know how much cache controller, address decorders and the > like would take, but I don't think it would be quite as much. Hmm... > > A little obnoxious remark (sorry, but I couldn't resist :) > How do you know it was the cache that took that chunk of silicon? > Couldn't it just as well have been the multiplication array of the > coprocessor? I for one couldn't tell the two apart. End of remark. > The photo I saw was one of those "And this is the FPU section" shots with red arrows pointing at the chip. I sure wish I could remember the publication I saw it in! > Tom Thuneby (basker@diku.dk) >>Periphonics Corp. | Shane Bouslough is: shane@inferno.peri.com Ride Bike! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, we just got the official domain recently and the updated map entry hasn't made the rounds yet. Oops! For well deserved flames, send to: ...uunet!mcdhup!inferno!shane -- Periphonics Corp. | Shane Bouslough is: shane@inferno.peri.com Ride Bike! 4000 Veterans Hwy. | or: ...uunet!mcdhup!inferno!shane Bohemia, NY 11716 | "Too slow, Chicken Marango! Too slow for *this* cat!" 516-467-0500 | -Cat, Red Dwarf