plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (11/09/90)
Just a quick question. May be e-mail reply to me is more appropriate.
When I was shopping for 20 to 25 MHz 80386 CPU's, I was told that the
bug free version is those with double sigma marking. I did saw them.
Now I am interested in 80386-33. It trouble me that I don't see the
same double sigma marking on the CPUs I have looked at so far.
Does the double sigma rule apply to 33 MHz 80386 or is it only to
the slower parts ? In another word, how can I tell if a 33 MHz 80386
is a bug free version (may be they all are, but I hope someone
knowledgeable can tell me if it is so).
Thanks in advance.
Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........
Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------,
########################################### :
E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, :
Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) |
Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__
Singapore 0410. SPLAT !
#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) (11/15/90)
In article <3720001@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com> plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) writes: > When I was shopping for 20 to 25 MHz 80386 CPU's, I was told that the > bug free version is those with double sigma marking. I did saw them. > Now I am interested in 80386-33. It trouble me that I don't see the > same double sigma marking on the CPUs I have looked at so far. > > Does the double sigma rule apply to 33 MHz 80386 or is it only to > the slower parts ? In another word, how can I tell if a 33 MHz 80386 > is a bug free version (may be they all are, but I hope someone > knowledgeable can tell me if it is so). > If you are referring to the "16-bit only operation" bug, that occurred only with early 16MHz 80386 CPUs (and the 1st 20,000 of them). 20MHz and greater do not have the problem. The buggy 16MHZ 80386's are also suppose to have markings on it stating that the chip is for 16-bit operation only. Unfortunately many chips went out before this marking was added. -- ******************************************************************************** Disclaimer: My company knows not what I say (or do). Mike Brim | Commodore Electronics Limited PC Analyst - System Evaluation Group | West Chester, PA 19380 Product Assurance | InterNet: brim@cbmvax.commodore.com ********************************************************************************
rick@genrad.com (Richard A. Frerichs) (11/17/90)
>In article <3720001@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com> plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) writes: > > When I was shopping for 20 to 25 MHz 80386 CPU's, I was told that the > bug free version is those with double sigma marking. I did saw them. > Now I am interested in 80386-33. It trouble me that I don't see the > same double sigma marking on the CPUs I have looked at so far. > > Does the double sigma rule apply to 33 MHz 80386 or is it only to > the slower parts ? In another word, how can I tell if a 33 MHz 80386 > is a bug free version? I had this question recently about a 25MHz 80386DX that did not have the double sigma markings. My previous motherboard had a 20 MHz 80386DX which did have the double sigma markings. When I got the new motherboard and did not see the double sigma markings, I called our local Intel Rep and he told me that the latest die revision was "sx218". This number appears below the 80386 number. The sx218 does NOT have anything to do with the 386SX chip! Rick Frerichs GenRad Inc. USENET(noun): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise unused late night phone capacity.
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (11/17/90)
brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) writes: >If you are referring to the "16-bit only operation" bug, that occurred only >with early 16MHz 80386 CPUs (and the 1st 20,000 of them). 20MHz and greater >do not have the problem. However, 20mhz chips do have this EE marking. I'm stareing[sp?] at one right now. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 -- -- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 -- -- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (11/19/90)
In article <15882@cbmvax.commodore.com> brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) writes: >If you are referring to the "16-bit only operation" bug, that occurred only >with early 16MHz 80386 CPUs (and the 1st 20,000 of them). 20MHz and greater >do not have the problem. The buggy 16MHZ 80386's are also suppose to have >markings on it stating that the chip is for 16-bit operation only. I have an 80386-20 at work imprinted with "16 BIT S/W ONLY" on the CPU, so the above information is not correct. This is in a Proteus system that's 2 or 3 years old. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) (11/19/90)
In article <2275@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: > In article <15882@cbmvax.commodore.com> brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) writes: > >If you are referring to the "16-bit only operation" bug, that occurred only > >with early 16MHz 80386 CPUs (and the 1st 20,000 of them). 20MHz and greater > >do not have the problem. The buggy 16MHZ 80386's are also suppose to have > >markings on it stating that the chip is for 16-bit operation only. > > I have an 80386-20 at work imprinted with "16 BIT S/W ONLY" on the CPU, so > the above information is not correct. This is in a Proteus system that's > 2 or 3 years old. Interesting...does the 386CPU actually say 80386-20 or 80386-16? Some companies ran (run) CPU's higher then their stated spec. Also have you tried 32 bit software on it? Thanks -- ******************************************************************************** Disclaimer: My company knows not what I say (or do). Mike Brim | Commodore Electronics Limited PC Analyst - System Evaluation Group | West Chester, PA 19380 Product Assurance | InterNet: brim@cbmvax.commodore.com ********************************************************************************
jimf@idayton.field.intel.com (Jim Fister) (11/20/90)
Hi, I'll add my two cents to the discussion. I would like to say that I'm giving standard information that any sales office should be able to give. However, any accidental editorial is my comment, not Intel's. I hope that keeps both me and the company clean. Double sigma marks were put on all 386DX (TM) parts to signify that the part was fully tested an 100% guaranteed and such for quite a long time. My understanding is that very few of the unmarked (and not quite right) parts actually made it to the consumer. If you find an old part without the double sigma, call your local Intel sales office or Distributor for your options. Intel stopped marking DX parts around the middle of the year, because the specific bug is long gone. Also, Intel specifies the speed of the part on the first line of the chip. I believe it reads "A80386DX-xx III" or "A80386DX-xx IV" depending on stepping. The xx denotes the speed of the part, 16,20,25,or 33. Trademark is also on the chip, but above this. Any pushing of the part beyond the listed speed is not recoommended by Intel. Hope this helps. Any further questions can be addressed as described. Greetings from the Rocking Metropolis. JimF
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (11/22/90)
/ jimf@idayton.field.intel.com (Jim Fister) / 11:30 pm Nov 20, 1990 / writes: > Double sigma marks were put on all 386DX (TM) parts to signify that the part was > fully tested an 100% guaranteed and such for quite a long time. My > understanding is that very few of the unmarked (and not quite right) parts > actually made it to the consumer. If you find an old part without the > double sigma, call your local Intel sales office or Distributor for your > options. > How old would you classify as old ? One year ? Two year ? I'm the guy who asked the original question on this double sigma issue. And I am about to buy a 33 MHz 386, so .... can't be too careful :-). > Intel stopped marking DX parts around the middle of the year, because the > specific bug is long gone. > Middle of the year as in 1990 June-July ?? I also get the impression that all 386 above 25 MHz does not have any of these double sigma marking anymore. Is that true ? So, am I to assume that ALL 386-33 is "bug free" ?? > Also, Intel specifies the speed of the part on the first line of the chip. > I believe it reads "A80386DX-xx III" or "A80386DX-xx IV" depending on > stepping. The xx denotes the speed of the part, 16,20,25,or 33. Trademark > The III & IV define steeping. Does it also define manufacturing time ? ie. IV being manufactured later than III using a newer mask set ? Thanks for any more info. Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ Singapore 0410. SPLAT ! #include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/23/90)
In article <15882@cbmvax.commodore.com> brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) writes: | If you are referring to the "16-bit only operation" bug, that occurred only | with early 16MHz 80386 CPUs (and the 1st 20,000 of them). 20MHz and greater | do not have the problem. The buggy 16MHZ 80386's are also suppose to have | markings on it stating that the chip is for 16-bit operation only. | Unfortunately many chips went out before this marking was added. And most of the one which might have the bug seem to work fine. I got this system four years ago, the first 386 actually delivering, and have run 32 bit software on it as a BBS, uucp hub, development machine, etc, for four solid years. Yet to have the first hardware problem. -- 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