HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: norm@netcom.com (Norman Hardy)
Subject: Re: Superscalar vs. multiple CPUs ?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:36:24 GMT

In article <PRENER.92Dec13030928@prener.watson.ibm.com> prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.063930.8687@netcom.com> norm@netcom.com (Norman Hardy) writes:
>
>> In article <PRENER.92Dec12010123@prener.watson.ibm.com> prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener) writes:
>
>I was thinking of situations such as a floating-point functional unit
>having state that includes the current rounding mode.
>--
>                                   Dan Prener (prener@watson.ibm.com)

Good point. Thank you. The 88K's systolic array carries 
such state independently for each stage of the array. This 
avoids draining the array upon changing the state. The same 
works for a shared functional unit. 

By the way this was either John Cocke's idea or he would 
know whose idea it was.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:23:57 GMT

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>          Macintosh IICi, built-in Apple video, 680x480(yuck)x256 colors.
>          32 bit addressing turned on, VRAM on, 16 Meg available, disk 
>          cache 384K.      

>Software: Excel 3 (I will try it with Excel 4 in the next couple days).

  I tried it with Excel 4.0 on the Mac, which is generally slower than
Excel 3.0 in my experience.

>The test: Put an integer into cell A1. Cells B1 -> Z1 are cell to the left
>          + 1. Cells A2 -> Z1000 are cell above +1. See how long it takes 
>          to recalc the sheet after changing value of A1.

>Results:  Under Windows recalc took 3.3 seconds. 
>On the Mac, 7.5 seconds.

  4.1 seconds on my IIci.  

>          I'll try this and other benchmarks on different machines. Don't
>          have a Quadra to try though.

  I do though.  1.2 seconds for the same test on a 25MHz 68040 Quadra.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
"...there is only one thing worse than having marketing people on a project,
 and that is having no marketing people on a project."  - Larry Tesler.
From: dmarer@td2cad.intel.com (Dennis Marer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Overdrive for the 486/50??
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:01:59 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

In article <1gjdjjINNjcq@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> msimmons@ec.uwa.oz.au (Michael Simmons - mgmt_staff) writes:
>Isn't there a DX2, Overdrive ,whatever that has the same pinout as the dx33
>I was told by an intel dealer that I can buy a dx2/66 (overdrive ...) and
>plug it straight into my dx33 motherboard.
>The clock doubling is done internal (via a PLL) to the dx2/66 (overdrive etc).
>Hence the motherboard is not required to provided a 66Mhz clock signal?
>Maybe a dx2/66 requires the board manufacture to provided a 33/66Mhz jumper
>where as a overdrive chip does the 33MHz to 66MHz conversion internally.
>I have read somewhere that either the dx2 or the overdrive (?) has an extra
>pin. What signal is on this pin? Is the rest of the pinouts/signals the same?

The OverDrive and the DX2 are the same chip internally...if you buy a system
with the clock doubling technology, you'll get a DX2.  If you upgrade an
existing system, you'll get an OverDrive.  There are some pinout differences,
and there are even two versions of the OverDrive: one for systems with the
expansion processor socket, and one for systems without.  The extra pin on
the ODP (for expansion socket) is called the 'key' pin, presumeably to disable
the existing processor.  The ODPR (replacement part) has an identical pinout
to the original DX processor.

				Dennis Marer
				dmarer@td2cad.intel.com


P.S. I just installed an OverDrive in my 33MHz system...wheeeeeeeeee!

-- Not speaking for Intel.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: lam@ai-pluto.JPL.NASA.GOV (RLam)
Subject: 8051 emulator
Reply-To: lam@ai-pluto.JPL.NASA.GOV
Organization: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:02:16 GMT


Hi,
   I'm looking for a 8051 emulator shareware called emily-51. Does anyone
know where can I ftp it? Thanks in advance.


Ray Lam
lam@ai-pluto.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:36:26 GMT

In article <Bz2C4s.FqE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>          Macintosh IICi, built-in Apple video, 680x480(yuck)x256 colors.
>          32 bit addressing turned on, VRAM on, 16 Meg available, disk 
>          cache 384K.      

>Results:  Under Windows recalc took 3.3 seconds. On the Mac, 7.5 seconds.


On the same machine: Excel 4 (same memory settings) 5.1 seconds.

With 32 bit addressing turned off: 4.1 seconds.

Virtual memory on/off doesn't seem to make a difference.




















-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: pfk@rz.uni-jena.de (Frank Klemm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Intel claims the Pentium is 64-bit! (who cares if it real
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: pfk@rz.uni-jena.de (Frank Klemm)
Organization: Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany


Z80
~~~
The 8 bit registers are A, B, C, D, E, H, L, IXL, IXH, IYL, IYH. The 8 bit accu is A. The following 
addressings modes are available (HL), (IX+n), (IY+n) 
The following operations are available:

MOV r,r         MOV r,n		MOV A,(nn)	MOV (nn),A
ADD A,r
ADC A,r
SUB A,r
SBB A,r
AND A,r
OR  A,r
XOR A,r
CMP A,r
INC r
DEC r
TEST r,(1 << s)

The 16 bit registers are BC, DE, HL, IX and IY. The 16 bit accu can be used HL, IX and IY.
The following operations are available.

MOV rr,nn	MOV rr,(nn) 	MOV (nn),rr
ADC aa,rr
SBB aa,rr
INC rr
DEC rr
PUSH rr
POP rr

To my mind the Z80 is a 8 bit processor with many helpful 16 bit stuff. If you know the 6502/10 series (C64),
it is much easier to program the Z80 becuase of that.

Frank
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: hm@opus40.ix.de (Harald Milz)
Subject: Re: 486/66 .. Into a 486/50 motherboard?
Organization: iX-Redaktion
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:52:45 GMT


|> Is it possible to replace the 50MHz 486DX chip on a 486/50 mommyboard with a
|> 66 MHz DX/2??  I am thinking of replacing my CPU, but I don't want to replace 
|> my entire motherboard if I don't have to.  Thanks.

You should do this only in case you want to burn in your new
cpu somewhat harder. Actually, the 486DX2-66 runs on an external
33 MHz clock and doubles it internally. In your 50 MHz board, it
will be fed with 50 MHz - with the nice effect of doubling the
clock to 100 MHz - which even Intel isn't expected to achieve
before mid next year. Very fast, indeed, but not long enough 
to earn money with ;-) 

-- 
| iX           | Harald Milz        | email: hm@ix.de         |
| Multiuser    | Editor             | phone +49 511 547 47 66 |  
| Multitasking | Helstorfer Str. 7  | fax   +49 511 547 47 33 |
| Magazine     | D-3000 Hannover 61 |
From: tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Intel's new performance test iCOMP
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:18:49 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

Processing power doesn't necessarily mean system performance...
especially running multitasking windows.  Microsoft's system benchmark
is a much better measure of performance.  Putting a Pentium(tm) with
no external cache, 2ws 4MB DRAM, a plain ISA VGA, and a ST225 isn't going
to make multitasking windows apps run too much faster.

Tom
-- 
| Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer | tom.barrett@amd.com
| AMD PCD / Austin, TX  78741        | v:512-462-6856 / f:512-462-5155
| "No is yes, And we're all free"    | CO made a #2 no-no... PU!
| My views may not be shared by the organization of origin
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Overdrive for the 486/50??
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:56:07 GMT

In article <8f9__KS00WB5Qu_ogq@andrew.cmu.edu> Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>msimmons@ec.uwa.oz.au (Michael Simmons - mgmt_staff) writes:
>> Why shouldn't this also work for 486DX/50 (50Mhz clock) -> 486DX2/66 (33Mhz
>> clock)
>
>Well for one thing, the dx50 and the dx2/66 are different chips
>needing different motherboards, so it's quite possible that to switch
>chips like that could be hazardous...

Most 486 boards you can buy today will run just about anything you can
find a socket on it for.

E.g. a EISA-486SI from Main Board owners manual:

	i486DX-33 and 50Mhz
	i486SX -16, 20 and 25Mhz
	i487SX -16, 20 and 25Mhz
	i486DX2 - full series

Also takes a WeitekWTL-4167. It's based on SIS chip set.

The 486EW User's Manual shows basically the same except for the 487SX. It
is based on the Opti Chip set.

Your friendly clone dealer will be more than happy to deliver the board
with appropriate crystal for the CPU you order.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2667 comp.arch:11598
From: glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Superscalar vs. multiple CPUs ?
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:08:32 GMT
	<1992Dec7.012026.11482@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Dec8.000357.26577@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
	<PCG.92Dec9154602@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon


    Well, certain tricks can also be used with multiple CPUs on the same
    die. And these have an important advantage: as far as I can see, 6
    instruction issue per cycle is virtually pointless. The *limit* of
    superscalarity present in general purpose codes is 4, and actually we
    are hard pressed to find many codes with superscalarity higher than 2.

Dave Ditzell, at Micro-25, quoted Larry Wall at ASPLOS:

"The amount of attainable parallelism is directly proportional to the
year of publication."

To which Ditzell adds (paraphrased):

<<The conference where research is being published apparently must
also be factored in to the amount of attainable parallelism. Micro
papers have more parallelism than ASPLOS papers.>>



For those who don't follow the conferences, Micro (the Conference on
Microarchitecture [with Microprogramming added in very small letters
for historical reasons]) has traditionally been the conference for new
work in superscalar, and compilers for same.  Micro was a backwater
for a while, while pipelined RISCs grabbed the spotlight, but Micro
has become much more interesting as superscalar has become standard
practice. 
--

Andy Glew, glew@ichips.intel.com
Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy, 
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497

This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions
of Intel Corp.

Intel Inside (tm)
From: matthias@nsr.hp.com (Matthias Kamm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Can 16MHz 80387 be installed in a 33MHz 80386 system?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:39:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Santa Clara Site
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpmvd069.nsr.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.2 PL7]

|S| Norbert Juffa (S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de) wrote:
: In <1992Dec15.101259.6401@sei.cmu.edu> griest@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu writes:
: 
: > I have been told that you can install a 16MHz '387DX in a coprocessor
: > socket to work with a 33MHz '386DX and it will work ok (running Math
: > instructions at the 16MHz rate).  I am not convinced.  Has anyone done
: > this?  How does it work?  Are their any jumpers that must be set?
: > 
: >    Tom
: > 
:
You're probably mixing up the 287 with the 387.  The 286 coprocessor, the
287, runs asyncronously to the motherboard clock, and therefore can be
used at different speeds than the main cpu clock.  In fact, my 4 year
old 386 20Mhz motherboard has a 287 socket in it, and I'm using an Am287
12Mhz.  It works great, and is cheap as heck ;->

The 387 is syncronous, and therefore must be rated at the same speed as
the motherboard cpu i.e. you need a 387DX-33.  

It's possible, however, that Intel's 16Mhz rated coprocessors will actually
run at 33Mhz.  It's just not guaranteed and tested to that rating.  If 
you have one, just plug it in and try it out (16Mhz is yawning by todays
submicron silicon standards, so I wouldn't at all be suprised if it works).
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486SLC chip.... what it it?
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:27:57 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <Bz89I7.23u@hfglobe.intel.com> sting@hfglobe.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:
>
>As for why the 486SLC by Cyrix will not run NeXTStep, I think
>something should be considered:
>
>NeXTStep is the first, to the best of my knowledge, 32 bit
>anything for the general PC market since Cyrix and AMD started
>their clone operations.  I don't believe that Cyrix could have
>possibly tested 32 bit stuff adequately, because there was very
>little of it out there, and they were aiming for the entry level
>market as well.

This is hogwash.

SVR2, SVR3.2, and SVR4 were all available before Cyrix ever produced any
Intel compatible processors.  On the PC, 32 bit UNIX has been available
since 1987.

>My feeling is, they booted up DOS, Windows, probably a flight
>simulator and a spreadsheet, and said, "It's compatible" (okay,
>I'm sure the tests were more involved than that, but that's the
>general idea.)

So they were fools.

>Now when Next ported their OS to the 486, they probably had to
>do some tweaking to their compilers.  This probably meant getting
>an Intel 486 programmer's reference manual to do it.  After fixing
>a few bugs (either due to something undocumented in the manuals,
>documented incorrectly, etc) they got the OS functional.  These
>nondocumented/incorectly documented things could be a partial
>reason for what's causing NeXTStep not to run on the Cyrix chip.

The 486 is pretty well documented.  Next uses GCC.

>Two broad assumptions on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if
>that had at least something to do with it.
>
>I really wouldn't be too surprised if other true 32 bit code for
>the x86 family also had problems on the Cyrix part.
>
>But we'll have to wait and see.

Yup.
-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: merrifie@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael C Merrifield)
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:42:00 GMT

Anyone seen the Motorola adds about an Ingram Laboratory performance study?
Look on page 22 & 23 of the July 92 issue of Byte, for example.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "Recent Studies Reveal 25MHz Is Now Faster Than 50MHz"

"Ingram Benchmark Results, March 1992 - 25 and 33 MHz 040 Macintosh Quadra
Outruns the 486 at 33 and 50 MHz."

"This revelation is brought to you by the Apple Macintosh and the Motorola
68040."  The add goes on to say that Ingram Labs (an independent PC testing
firm) compared the newest 040 Macs (Quadra 950 and 700) to several of the
quickest 486 Windows PCs running the most popular applications for both
Macintosh and Windows 3.0 (such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Wingz, PageMaker,
Persuasion and Illustrator) and measured the performance of "real world
functions" (such as opening a file, scrolling, running a macro, performing
calculations, etc.).

The results are shown below...

* Performance Index
0------1------2------3------4------5------6------7------8------9------10

33MHz 040
Mac Quadra 950 ----------------------------------------------------9.7

25MHz 040
Mac Quadra 700 ---------------------------------------------------9.3

ALR Business Veisa
486/50 -------------------------------------------------8.1

Compaq Deskpro
486/33 -------------------------------------6.5

IBM PS/2 95 XP
486/33 ------------------------------------6.2

DELL 433P
486/33 ---------------------------------5.9

* "Performance Index is the measured result relative to the slowest machine
  tested (a 286-based IBM PS/1 running Windows). For example, Mac Quadra 950
  is 9.7 times faster than the Performance Index; the Dell 433P is 5.9 times
  faster."

"No surprise, really.  Macintosh and its graphical user interface were designed
from the start around the 68000's true 32-bit architecture.  Naturally, it
outperforms computers powered by an extended 8-bit architecture running a
character-based operating system with a tacked-on GUI."

This is not another "closed minded" Mac user's attempt to save the world
from the wages of PC use.  Certainly IBM/clones have a niche in the world of
personal computing. My intent is to point out that if you want a high
performance graphical computer, I think the Macintosh is the way to go.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: thomasez@dhhalden.no (THOMAS LUNDQUIST)
Subject: Re: PARITY ERROR, SYSTEM HALTED ... ????
Summary: Strange things happen.
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:20:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.090951.24678@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> korte@alhena.itp.uni-hannover.de (Gerd Kortemeyer) writes:
>From: korte@alhena.itp.uni-hannover.de (Gerd Kortemeyer)
>
>We have got a problem with a 80286 PC, 4 MB RAM running DOS 5.0. We use
>DOS in the HIGH-mode and use only the standard HIMEM-driver.
>After about 1 minute of 'work' the system suddenly tells us
>'Parity Error, System halted' or 'Ueberlauf des internen Stapelspeichers'
>which should be something like 'Internal stack overflow'. This message
>has got nothing to do with what YOU actually do. I understand
>the first message comes from the BIOS while the second one comes from the
>operating system.
>
>When resetting the machine afterwards the computer will stop while doing
>it's memory check at some changing numbers. When switching off and then on
>again within about 10 seconds the computer will be completely death.
>
>If you wait for a few minutes, everything will again 'work' in the above
>sense. Running the BIOS-DIAGS will show no errors. Since that old computer
>has no SIMMs or SIPPs I pressed down every single memory-chip into it's
>mounting, but this had no effect, either. After all of this trial
>and error I thought it might be some virus writing perhaps into the CMOS
>which might have caused confusion even after RESET, so I initialised the
>harddisk again installing DOS 5.0 again - no effect. Strange: During the 
>whole installation things worked properly.
>
>I don't have any more ideas, does anyone else have?

This sounds like a hardware problem. The error occurs when the chips are 
warm. The installation you had might be just luck.
But Who knows when it's up to computers ??:=)

Try this : open the box, start it and work on it. When the error occurs use 
a cooling spray on the motherboard while the computer is on, reset until the 
whole thing works again. If this helps, try to locate the fault by cooling 
only some parts (memory, ASIC's, processor and so). 

But first, try to reinstall the cards, I guess some of the memory is on a 
ramcard, it might be there.

Good luck and Merry Christmas.

ThomasEZ


>
>Merry christmas
>
>Gerd
>

   ThomasEZ.

     ' I'm not perfect, but I'm perfect for you. '
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2665 comp.sys.mac.hardware:23906 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:32933
From: s2525090@techst02.technion.ac.il (Eran Davidov)
Subject: DPMI specifications
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:53:15 GMT

I've heard that there is an Intel document explaining the DPMI specifications.
If anybody knows it's number, or how to get it, please send mail. I've heard
it's supposed to be free, but I don't know for sure.

	please reply to s2525090@techst02.technion.ac.il
		Thanks, 
			Eran

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.arch
From: cleary@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (John Cleary)
Subject: Re: Superscalar vs. multiple CPUs ?
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:03:46 GMT


>>So, are we going to see (for example) four CPUs stuffed in each corner of
>>a big die? That implies some unreasonable design choices: *four* I-caches,
>>*four* D-caches, four sets on FPUs, four sets of ALUs, etc...  No, I guess
>>looking at it like that, the idea of laying four megacells down on the
>>chip and having them communicate via test-and-set semaphores from their
>>individual caches seems slightly crazy.  It's not that there isn't enough
>>transistors to do it some day, but rather that those transistors aren't
>>being used very efficiently.
>
>       There are other ways to do it.  For example, each CPU could have a
>smallish icache and maybe dcache, and then a large section of the chip
>devoted to shared cache (either unified or split, single-ported or
>multi-ported, etc - those are details).

So whats wrong with putting one CPU on the chip and filling the rest with
DRAM? 
This might also help with the heat dissipation problem which I am told
is one of the biggest design constraints for the newer chips.
Why have lots of cool memory chips and hot CPUs, instead have lots of
luke-warm mixtures :-)
If you fill the chip with CPUs and then have to go off chip for memory
surely it is better to have the local memory close to the CPU.
You wont be able to get speedup unless each parallel CPU has a reasonably small
working set of memory anyway.
I have also wondered whether we may be reaching the point where it is better
to avoid the complexity of Superscalar etc. and just have lots of simple
CPUs with their own local memory on chip.
-- 
John Cleary
University of Calgary.
cleary@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:02:55 EST
From: <ESQUIVEL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Heating problems?


Could somebody tell me if the heating problem in the
486DX 50MHz has been fixed?

Any similar problems in 486DX2 66MHz?

Any information would be appreciated!

Dr. Rodolfo O. Esquivel
Queen's University

E-mail. Esquivel@qucdn.QueensU.CA

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware