tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Adam Goldberg) (04/02/91)
I read in a magazone (I don't remember which) that AMD was going to formally announce the AMD386-DX 40MHz on March 31 (Yesterday, but that was Sunday...so maybe they were going to today). Apparently AMD & Intel reached an out-of-court settlement on the 386 trademark question. Hoooray. According to the article, the 40 Mhz version of the 386 would cost almost exactly the same as Intel's 33 Mhz version of it. Accorrding to the article, several hardware (clone) vendors have announced (or will announce) clones equipped with the 40 Mhz version of the 386. It seems to me that a 40 Mhz version of a 386 would be preferable to the 25 Mhz version of the 486...and as a result, Intel (according to the article) is rushing their development on the faster 486s and the 586 (due out this year). +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Adam Goldberg Bitnet: tabu6@ISUVAX.BITNET + + Iowa State University Internet: tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU + + "It's simple! Even a Pascal programmer could do it!" + + "Remember: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up" + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr2.022516.26153@news.iastate.edu> tabu6@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes: >Hoooray. According to the article, the 40 Mhz version of the 386 would cost >almost exactly the same as Intel's 33 Mhz version of it. Accorrding to the >article, several hardware (clone) vendors have announced (or will announce) >clones equipped with the 40 Mhz version of the 386. > >It seems to me that a 40 Mhz version of a 386 would be preferable to the 25Mhz >version of the 486...and as a result, Intel (according to the article) is >rushing their development on the faster 486s and the 586 (due out this year). I have to agree, hats off to AMD! I think Intel needs the competition to keep them on their toes. Prices on these parts are out of hand to say the least. The only problem I see with the elevated clock rate 386 is the fact that some of us need the FPU. I don't see any 40Mhz 80387 parts as yet, and I'd expect costs there to also be out of sight. This would tend to leave the 486 as an attractive solution once you considered the cost of the CPU/FPU combination. Wouldn't it be nice if AMD got together with Cyrix and layed out a 386&387 on a die? Throw in some cache, and you have an interesting concept going..... Terry Terry Jones {rutgers,uunet}!acsu.buffalo.edu!jones SUNY at Buffalo ECE Dept. or: rutgers!ub!jones, jones@acsu.buffalo.edu
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (04/06/91)
jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes: > >The only problem I see with the elevated clock rate 386 is the fact >that some of us need the FPU. I don't see any 40Mhz 80387 parts as yet, and >I'd expect costs there to also be out of sight. > In the latest PC-Week, practically every non-Intel manufacturer of numeric coprocessors has a full-page advertisement for their new 40MHz 387. Ain't this industry great? > > Terry > -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) (04/07/91)
In article <1032@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes: >> >>The only problem I see with the elevated clock rate 386 is the fact >>that some of us need the FPU. I don't see any 40Mhz 80387 parts as yet, and >>I'd expect costs there to also be out of sight. >> > >In the latest PC-Week, practically every non-Intel manufacturer of numeric >coprocessors has a full-page advertisement for their new 40MHz 387. Ain't >this industry great? > Yeah, but you didn't mention cost. I'd still much rather have the FPU on the same die as the CPU. The performance gain is considerable. I never meant to imply that there would not be FPUs available at the higher clock rate. I do maintain that the benefit of having them is diminished by the fact that a single die solution at the same clock rate (or slightly less) will perform better in floating point intensive applications, and possibly be more cost effective. I'm waiting to see if someone other than Intel offers us such a solution since it seems as though the legal precedence has been established. Refer to the second portion of my original article. All AMD has to do is be careful what they name the device. ;) Terry Jones {rutgers,uunet}!acsu.buffalo.edu!jones SUNY at Buffalo ECE Dept. or: rutgers!ub!jones, jones@acsu.buffalo.edu
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (04/11/91)
In article <69454@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes: | I'm waiting to see if someone other than Intel offers us such a | solution since it seems as though the legal precedence has been established. | Refer to the second portion of my original article. All AMD has to do is | be careful what they name the device. ;) AMI has the right to use Intel microcode. However, there is a lot more to the chip than microcode, and I don't know if the right to microcode in the FPU has been established. For what it's worth, a benchmark which is very heavily trig intensive ran faster on a 16MHz Cyrix SX chip than a 486-25. I think I'd rather have the 486, though! -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) (04/12/91)
In article <3672@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <69454@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes: > >| I'm waiting to see if someone other than Intel offers us such a >| solution since it seems as though the legal precedence has been established. >| Refer to the second portion of my original article. All AMD has to do is >| be careful what they name the device. ;) > > AMI has the right to use Intel microcode. However, there is a lot more >to the chip than microcode, and I don't know if the right to microcode >in the FPU has been established. > Agreed. But I'm not sure why they'd want to license Intel's FPU microcode. I'd rather see them use Cyrix's 80387 clone on the die. Or something along those lines. I don't know how Cyrix went about producing their dies for the FPU, I doubt they licensed microcode to do it. Terry Terry Jones {rutgers,uunet}!acsu.buffalo.edu!jones SUNY at Buffalo ECE Dept. or: rutgers!ub!jones, jones@acsu.buffalo.edu
mmshah@athena.mit.edu (Milan M Shah) (04/12/91)
>>In article <69454@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes: >> >>| I'm waiting to see if someone other than Intel offers us such a >>| solution since it seems as though the legal precedence has been established. >> AMI has the right to use Intel microcode. However, there is a lot more >>to the chip than microcode, and I don't know if the right to microcode >>in the FPU has been established. >> > > Agreed. But I'm not sure why they'd want to license Intel's FPU >microcode. I'd rather see them use Cyrix's 80387 clone on the die. Or >something along those lines. I don't know how Cyrix went about producing >their dies for the FPU, I doubt they licensed microcode to do it. > For most non-FPU related stuff (and I get the impression that most all commercial software go to great pains to stick to integer math because they must run on non-FPU equipped machines), wouldn't it be much wiser to put a larger cache on the die itself (ie, ala 486's cache?). I would think this would be much more beneficial for non-FPU stuff, yes? Milan .
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/14/91)
In article <69454@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes: > I'm waiting to see if someone other than Intel offers us such a > solution I think AMD should come out with the i586 (and trademark the name) before Intel does. Wouldn't that be funny. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) (04/15/91)
In article <1991Apr14.152248.3911@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >I think AMD should come out with the i586 (and trademark the name) before >Intel does. Wouldn't that be funny. At that it would! I'd have to buy one just to have it framed :) Terry Jones {rutgers,uunet}!acsu.buffalo.edu!jones SUNY at Buffalo ECE Dept. or: rutgers!ub!jones, jones@acsu.buffalo.edu