pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) (07/30/90)
A brief question for the net: The 286 chip is called the 286. The 386 chip is called the 386. Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486? Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe? - Don Pajerek
sct@lanl.gov (Stephen Tenbrink) (07/31/90)
In article <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma>, pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) writes: > > A brief question for the net: > The 286 chip is called the 286. The 386 chip is called the 386. > Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486? > Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe? All Intel microprocessors have had the pseudonym i86,i186,i286, etc. for many years. I'm not sure why they do this. From a 1982 Intel catalog they called the earlier micros 8080, 8085, etc. Then starting with the 16 bit micros they use iAPX 86, iAPX 88, iAPX 186, etc. while at the same time calling them 8086, 8088, 80186. I guess they may be shortening some of this to i486 for some unexplained reason.
t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) (08/01/90)
In article <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma> pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Donald Pajerek) writes: >Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486? >Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe? I had the same question awhile ago, and when I asked someone he said it had to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is that they hade over a million of.
dlou@dino.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) (08/01/90)
In article <56214@microsoft.UUCP> t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes: >In article <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma> pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Donald Pajerek) writes: >>Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486? >>Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe? > >I had the same question awhile ago, and when I asked someone he said it had >to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its >number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is >that they hade over a million of. I personally don't mind the confusion. Which is harder to say quickly? "Eight Oh Four Eighty Six" or "Eye Four Eighty Six"? How many people will confuse 8486 with 80486? 8486 with i486? -- Dennis Lou Disclaimer: I don't use lame disks. dlou@dino.ucsd.edu "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?" [backbone]!ucsd!dino!dlou "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (08/05/90)
In article <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma>, pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) writes: > The 286 chip is called the 286. The 386 chip is called the 386. > > Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486? > > Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe? Intel for quite some time has been trying to get the world to refer to the 80286 and 80386 as the i286 and i386 respectively. So it's not anything new. Since they seem to follow this naming fairly consistently, they apparently want the world to observe it. I have seen relatively few people outside of Intel refer to the 80286, 80386, and 80486 as the i286, i386, and i486 respectively - most often the abbreviations 286, 386, and 486 are used, or the longer numeric names; rarely the i-names. I've usually seen the entire family called the 80x86 family. The i is apparently short for iAPX (which is a term they use for a number of different Intel processors, not just the 80x86 family - such as the i860). I don't know what that stands for; I can make a guess (something like Intel Application Processor Architecture), but does anyone know for _sure_? Bruce C. Wright
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (08/05/90)
In article <56214@microsoft.UUCP>, t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes: > In article <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma> pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Donald Pajerek) writes: > >Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486? > >Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe? > > I had the same question awhile ago, and when I asked someone he said it had > to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its > number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is > that they hade over a million of. It's certainly not transistors - the 386 only has about 275k transistors, and the earlier 80x86 chips obviously have fewer. I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate a processor architecture. Bruce C. Wright
t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) (08/07/90)
In article <4005@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >> to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is >It's certainly not transistors - the 386 only has about 275k transistors, and the earlier 80x86 chips obviously have fewer. I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate a processor architecture. ----------- No, actually we were talking about the i486, which does indeed have >1,000,000 transistors in it. Intel even made a big deal of that particular fact. You seem to be looking at the wrong chip. Read mor carefully next time. dork don t-dona@microsoft dondaing@phoenix.princeton.princeton.edu
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (08/07/90)
In article <56340@microsoft.UUCP>, t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes: > In article <4005@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >> to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its > number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is > > >It's certainly not transistors - the 386 only has about 275k > >transistors, and the earlier 80x86 chips obviously have fewer. > >I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more > >than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate > >a processor architecture. > > No, actually we were talking about the i486, which does indeed have > >1,000,000 transistors in it. Intel even made a big deal of that > particular fact. You seem to be looking at the wrong chip. Read > mor carefully next time. dork Reviewing the article it appears _clear_ that the subject was the "i" as in "i286", "i386", and "i486". If that was not the intent of the article it was remarkably poorly written. I'm not disputing that the _486_ has over a million transistors - but the "i" has been around for a _lot_ longer than the 486 (my Intel book from when the 286 first came out certainly uses it). The "i" can't possibly indicate that the processor has over a million transistors - the 286 and 386 chips have always had alternate names as i286 and i386 chips, and neither of them has over a million transistors, or anywhere close to it. If it is an indicator of a million "somethings" I'm not sure what it would be offhand. As I said before, I suspect it is short for "iAPX", which is an acronym of some sort that Intel seems to use for processor chips. My guess is that it stands for something on the order of "Intel Application Processor Architecture" (or something like that). Suggest that you take the time to actually try to find an Intel book from before the days of the 486, and maybe even (horrors) _read_ it. I've got quite a collection and can FAX you some relevant pages showing the use of the "i" for the 286 and 386 quite a while ago. Bruce C. Wright
jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) (08/07/90)
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >As I said before, I suspect it is short for "iAPX", which is an >acronym of some sort that Intel seems to use for processor chips. >My guess is that it stands for something on the order of "Intel >Application Processor Architecture" (or something like that). >Suggest that you take the time to actually try to find an Intel >book from before the days of the 486, and maybe even (horrors) > Bruce C. Wright Bruce is correct. I have several older (than Bruce's) manuals, and I will quote from the "iAPX 86/88, 186/188 User's Manual," which was printed in May of 1983: (on page ii) The Intel Microsystem 80 Nomenclature As Intel's product lin has evolved, its component-based product numbering system has become inappropriate for all the possible VLSI computer solutions offered. While the components retain their names, Intel has moved to a new system-based naming scheme to accommodate these new VLSI systems. The following prefixes have been adopted for Intel's product lines, all of them under the general heading of Microsystem 80: iAPX - Processor Series iRMX - Operating Systems iSCB - Single Board Computers iSBX - MULTIMODULE Boards In the iAPX Series, the following processor lines are currently defined: iAPX 86 - 8086 CPU-based system iAPX 88 - 8088 CPU-based system iAPX 186 - 80186 CPU-based system iAPX 188 - 80188 CPU-based system iAPX 286 - 80286 CPU-based system As you can see, this was a fairly new naming system at that time, over seven years ago, and the 286 was a real product, although I don't believe that it was introduced in the IBM PC/AT until very late in 1984 or early 1985. Perhaps this will shed a little more light on the subject. John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511 -- John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511
tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) (08/08/90)
Someone writes: >>> to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its >>> number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is >In article <4005@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >>It's certainly not transistors ... >>I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more >>than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate >>a processor architecture. t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes: >No, actually we were talking about the i486, which does indeed have >>1,000,000 transistors in it. Intel even made a big deal of that >particular fact. You seem to be looking at the wrong chip. Read >mor carefully next time. dork Sorry Don, but Bruce is closer to the mark that anyone else has been. I don't speak for Intel, and I work in the systems side of the company, not the components side. The "i" (little i) found on many of Intels' chips and products (like ix86, iC86/286, iRMX, iAPX, etc) simply stands for what should be the most obvious ... "INTEL" ... look at how we write our logo, with a "little i". 'nuf said Tim Forsyth -- Tim Forsyth, tim@int13.hf.intel.com or forsytim@ccm.hf.intel.com Intel Corp., Oregon MicroComputer Division, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) (08/09/90)
In article <4007@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes:
=As I said before, I suspect it is short for "iAPX", which is an
=acronym of some sort that Intel seems to use for processor chips.
=My guess is that it stands for something on the order of "Intel
=Application Processor Architecture" (or something like that).
Would you believe that the "i" is short for "Intel"? No? I thought as
much. :-)
Pete
--
Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690