abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) (05/03/91)
I have heard that Intel might release 486SX. If C= is still going to release a 386 Bridgecard, I think they should forget the idea and start developing a 486SX BB NOW! Don't you agree? (after all, if they start now, they might be able to release it before 586SX machines floods in the market... 8^> ) -- Kelvin Leung ======================================================= Kelvin / Internet: abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu Leung/ or : kelvin.leung@dartmouth.edu =======================================================
cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.212247.12525@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) writes: > > I have heard that Intel might release 486SX. If C= is still going to >release a 386 Bridgecard, I think they should forget the idea and start >developing a 486SX BB NOW! > >Don't you agree? > >(after all, if they start now, they might be able to release it before >586SX machines floods in the market... 8^> ) > >-- Kelvin Leung >======================================================= >Kelvin / Internet: abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu > Leung/ or : kelvin.leung@dartmouth.edu >======================================================= I don't want to start an "I hate Intel thread" here, but I just can't resist giving my impressions of the 486SX. Intel sells the standard 486DX chip for about $500. The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you an idea of the profit margin on the DX. Also, Intel produces a 487SX so that if later on you decide you need floating point you can have it. But the 487SX retails for about $800, so the combination 486SX and 487SX is twice as expensive as the 486DX. But do you know what's in the 487SX: an entire 486DX. When installed it disables (can you believe this) the 486SX and acts just like a 486DX. So without the 487SX you have a crippled 486, with the 487SX you have two 486's but one is completely disabled. To me, it sounds like the marketing people at Intel have gone off the deep end. Or maybe they are just laughing all the way to the bank. Tim Cullip cullip@cs.unc.edu -- Tim Cullip cullip@cs.unc.edu
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (05/03/91)
In article <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu> cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) writes: >I don't want to start an "I hate Intel thread" here, but I just can't >resist giving my impressions of the 486SX. Intel sells the standard >486DX chip for about $500. The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating >point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just >as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you >an idea of the profit margin on the DX. I know this is hard for you to believe, but a major portion of the expense of a hyper-integrated chip (>1million gates) like the 486DX is the testing and the scrap costs. Any 486DX chips that passed the integer diagnostics but had a flaw in the FP unit are going in the trash unless they can be sold as a 486SX. There is a lot of savings when you reduce your test time by not requiring a test of a major portion of the chip like the FP unit. Also, your scrap rate goes down, and it may go down significantly if the FP unit is the most sensitive part of the chip (which seems likely, since the FP unit is always getting pushed the hardest for performance). Not testing the FP unit could conceivably cut their scrap rate in half, which would mean that it really does cost half as much to produce. _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com --
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (05/04/91)
abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) writes: > > I have heard that Intel might release 486SX. If C= is still going to >release a 386 Bridgecard, I think they should forget the idea and start >developing a 486SX BB NOW! > >Don't you agree? > >(after all, if they start now, they might be able to release it before >586SX machines floods in the market... 8^> ) > >-- Kelvin Leung Well, it's not an SX in the traditional 386sx sense. it's still a full 32 bit chip, it's missing the math co-processor. i certainly wouldn't pay for a system with one. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
dailey@frith.egr.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) (05/06/91)
In article <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu> cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) writes: >In article <1991May2.212247.12525@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) writes: >> I have heard that Intel might release 486SX. [...] >>-- Kelvin Leung >I don't want to start an "I hate Intel thread" here, but I just can't >resist giving my impressions of the 486SX. Intel sells the standard >486DX chip for about $500. The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating >point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just >as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you >an idea of the profit margin on the DX. My guess is that the FPU is one of the more complicated pieces of the processor. The chips also have on-board self-test circuitry. The failure rate for chips is very high (I've heard as much as 90% failure rate), especially for chips as complicated as a 386 or 486. I would imagine that if iNTEL knew that just the FPU was not working properly and everything else worked out fine, they'd have some system of turning off the FPU, putting the chip in a different mounting (for the 286 socket), and selling it as a 486SX. What would have been throwaway (ie, pure loss) becomes a profit. If 20% of all throwaway chips are bad just because of the FPU, then they could theoretically increase the yield of chips from 10% to 30%, which would tremendously increase profits. [...] >To me, it sounds like the marketing people at Intel have gone off the >deep end. Or maybe they are just laughing all the way to the bank. If my guess above is correct, I'd say they're making good business decisions. >Tim Cullip
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/07/91)
In <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu> cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) writes: >The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating >point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just >as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you >an idea of the profit margin on the DX. Ah, but notice that the 486SX is only available in speeds under 24MHz. They are probably "fallout", i.e. chips that don't run at rated speed, or have defective FPUs. Normally they would just be "roundfiled". Instead, Intel sells defective (as 486DX) chips for $250. What's the margin on that? THEN, they sell you the running 486DX, in a slightly different package, for MORE than the regular DX. I don't think the Intel marketing people are dumb, at all. The 486SX customers sure are, though. Personally, I'd rather wait for AMD to build their own 486SX, which will probably have a functional FPU. Dan Taylor /* My opinions, not NCR's. */
rik@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Rik Harris) (05/07/91)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu> cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) writes: >>I don't want to start an "I hate Intel thread" here, but I just can't >>resist giving my impressions of the 486SX. Intel sells the standard >>486DX chip for about $500. The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating >>point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just >>as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you >>an idea of the profit margin on the DX. >I know this is hard for you to believe, but a major portion of the expense of >a hyper-integrated chip (>1million gates) like the 486DX is the testing and >the scrap costs. Any 486DX chips that passed the integer diagnostics but had >a flaw in the FP unit are going in the trash unless they can be sold as a >486SX. I don't want to be quoted here, but I was under the belief that there was a bug in the original 80486 that caused any 'sin' or 'cos' operation to crash the chip, or at least give the wrong answer. They have started producing a corrected 80486, but now they have all the old 80486's with a faulty FP unit, so they would be probably where the SX's come from. [this hardly belong here...followups redirected] > _. >--Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. > Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- > V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com >-- rik. -- Rik Harris - rik.harris@monash.edu.au || | | |\ | | \/ Phone: +61 3 571-2895 || |__| | \| | /\ Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, || Caulfield Campus, Monash University, Australia || RULES
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (05/07/91)
In article <932@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: > >Ah, but notice that the 486SX is only available in speeds under 24MHz. >They are probably "fallout", i.e. chips that don't run at rated speed, >or have defective FPUs. Normally they would just be "roundfiled". >Instead, Intel sells defective (as 486DX) chips for $250. But that is (has been?) common practice: Remember those 128 Kbit DRAMs from TI, that were simply 256 Kbit chips with one defective half disabled? (They were used in the first PC 10 to fill up from 512 KB to 640 KB.) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
cs173scq@sdcc5.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) (05/08/91)
In article <932@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: |> In <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu> cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) writes: |> |> >The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating |> >point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just |> >as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you |> >an idea of the profit margin on the DX. |> |> Ah, but notice that the 486SX is only available in speeds under 24MHz. |> They are probably "fallout", i.e. chips that don't run at rated speed, |> or have defective FPUs. Normally they would just be "roundfiled". |> Instead, Intel sells defective (as 486DX) chips for $250. What's the |> margin on that? THEN, they sell you the running 486DX, in a slightly |> different package, for MORE than the regular DX. While we're on the subject, the 486 should't have been named the 486. The 486 is more of a lateral progression of the design rather than a vertical one. (The 486 has no new instructions on the 386, but is really an integration of a bunch of 386 family chips) I think they should have named the 486SX the 386LX and perhaps the 486DX the 386GT. This we have 386SX, 386DX, 386LX, and 386GT, just like the Mazda motorcar line (626 Std, DX, LX, and GT). Heck, they already call a portable a "convertable". We could even refer to cases as having "3, 4 or 5 doors". Cooling fans are already being marketed as "AirConditioning" and motherboards as being "turbo". This doesn't really belong in comp.sys.amiga.* so I've redirected the followups... -- Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?" dlou@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!" [backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+==================================================== dlou@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.