HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lparisi@shearson.com (Lon G. Parisi)
Subject: Re: 486dx, 486sx, 386sx
Organization: Lehman Brothers, NY
Distribution: comp.sys.intel
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:17:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.203726.11139@vax.oxford.ac.uk> callahan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.134604.3089@shearson.com>, lparisi@shearson.com (Lon G. Parisi) writes:
>> there is no difference in the chip other than the dx has a coprocessor.
>> Intel stressed to me that the 486sx WAS a true 486 unlike the 386sx which was
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> a glorified 286 chip. 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Wow.  Did they really say that?  The 386sx runs 32-bit code and supports
>page-based virtual memory; the 286 doesn't.
>
><Stuff deleted>
>Michael
>---
>Michael Callahan
>callahan@vax.ox.ac.uk
>callahan@math.harvard.edu

Whoops,

Michael caught my misleading statement.  I never meant to quote Intel
as saying the 386sx was a glorified 286. I meant to say that the 486sx
was a 486dx less the coprocessor according to Intel.  And now I know that
the 386sx is NOT a glorified 286.  I was told that by someone who I obvious
just took at face value.  But now that I'm on the subject, there is a PC
here at work (IBM model PS/2 386/70) that is so slow when it comes to
windows applications, it makes me wonder how this machine could have
been released.  When I want to run EXTREMELY small Excel data plots, access
the hard drive, anything but input data to the screen, there are very
irritating delays.  Now, I'm not a computer speed demon, but it seems like
I trip over myself using this machine.  Does anyone know what the deal with
this machine is? Since I'm in the market for a 486 machine, I do not want
to get a new machine and run into a similar problem.


Any responses could be posted to the net or

lparisi@shearson.com


Thanks in advance,

Lon Parisi
From: dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:09:42 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

Maybe they'll wait and try to get a clock-doubling Pentium running.

That would be a nice surprise.


Without change,                         *David Barber*
   nothing can ever get better.            @}-->----

UUCP: ucsd!crash!dbarber
INET: dbarber@crash.cts.com
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 960 XA/MX Questions
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:35:11 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>Isn't the X protocol completely floating point free as to make a floating
>point coprocessor useless in such an environment?

The *protocol* may be; the question is whether all implementations of
servers *for* that protocol are floating-point free, and I seem to
remember hearing that not all of them are.

>****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****

(You mean like an LM002? :-))
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 01:03:59 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1993Jan10.032935.18316@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
>The SL chips were harder to design with and more expensive. Also, consider
>that using an SL chip provided some product differentiation over your stock
>SX or DX laptop or notebook. Many have gone down the path designing for this
>particular variant, and don't appreciate having their engineering efforts
>wiped out in one fell swoop by Intel.

Well, implementing a power-managing platform requires
implementing a power-management-tolerant platform, even if
the chip handles its own problems.

There's still room to differentiate for power management,
just as it's possible to have similar motherboards that
differ only in off-cpu cache[*], etc., and any differentiation
is worth a few bucks in the marketplace, even if it's
artificial, which in this case it wouldn't be.

				--Blair
				  "I'm allowed to talk about it
				   because I don't know a thing..."

[*] I've gone through January's Computer Shopper with a
fine-toothed felt-tip pen, and noticed that hardly anyone
offers 466DX/33 machines in both a 64k and 256k cache
configuration, though it's a toss-up which they'll implement,
and only one actually mentioned that their board can be
upgraded from 64k to 256k (they offered to do it for just
$50).
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe)
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:13:41 GMT

In article <DOCONNOR.93Jan7094831@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:

>This is an idiotic rumor. No part in the 960 architecture will EVER
>replace the x86 line. Where did you hear such lunacy ? 

Perhaps not replace it. But was not the original 960KA/KB designed at
the same time as the 386, and did not the 960KB's FPU heavily influence
the 80387?

>Now whether something else will replace the "P5" chip, and when that
>might happen, I can't say. But you can be sure it will execute
>the Intel486(tm) instruction set.

We are all awaiting the Pentium.

Question: Will the IBM triple-clocked 486 match the performance of the
first Pentium's integer performance?

-- 
William H. Beebe, Jr. - wbeebe@bilver.UUCP
                 UUCP - {ucf-cs,peora,uunet}!tarpit!bilver!wbeebe
                      - bilver Public Access Unix, Orlando FL
                      - (407)644-8327  2400/9600  24 hours  8N1
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2872 comp.sys.mac.hardware:25295 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:34805
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:31:50 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidses writes:
                                                              
>>  The truth is that Mac applications are 32 bit, and DOS applications
>>are 16 bit. A comparison of UNIX 32 bit applications would be more      
>>correct, if they were just comparing the processors.                      
                                                                       
>Well, if this is so, how do the apps run on Mac Pluses? And why is    
>32 bit adressing an option under System 7?   
Part of the answer is in the CPUs Mac and IBM used. Here is part of
my Mac & IBM info article {Arcived on Sumex (36.44.0.6) in the /info-mac/report
directory as mac-ibm-compare.txt}

IBM     ALU  Registers    External    cache    Features/
CPU                     bus  address           Notes
 8088   16      16       8     20      ?      {197?-1989}
 8086   16      16      16     20      ?      {197?-1989}
80286   16      16      16     24      ?      Protected Mode & segmenting
80386   32      32      32     32      ?      MMU & 32-bit Protected Mode 
...
MAC     ALU  Registers    External    cache*   Features/
CPU                     bus  address           Notes
68000   16      32      16     24      none    {1984-1993}
68020   32      32      32     32     i; 256   {1987-1992}
...
Note the bit of the Registers and the addresses.  The 32-bits in the 68000 
register and 24 bits in the address allowed programers to write 24-bit code 
and still allow for 32-code compability.  {That's at least what a Apple/IBM
dealer says and he hates the Mac} The problem is some code is
designed around the 68000 and old OSes and is only 24-bit and so does not
run in 32-bit mode. {System 7.x was the first non-UNIX OS to have 32-bit
addressing, ALL older system back to 4.1 are 24-bit only though they allowed 
for 32-bit code to run} So, all Mac Apps are NOT 32-bit but they ARE 24-bit
{Very badly writen programs did strange things with the higher 8-bits that
Apple said not to do, as a result these programs bomb on the 68020 and higher
and with the newer OS which checked the addressing calls.}

Hope that clears some of the confusion.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Aplha vs. Pentium
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:24:10 GMT

In article <00965E8C.5E07CBC0@vms.csd.mu.edu> 2760carpente@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> If a 'Alpha' PC is running Windows NT, will this PC be faster than a
> 'Pentium' PC running Windows.

Unless Microsoft seriously butchers NT, NT on a 386/16 will probably be
faster then a Pentium PC running Windows. :->

As far as the CPUs are concerned, the initial AXP is supposed to be a bit
faster than Pentium, and there is supposed to be ore headroom in the basic
design.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: leo@rulhp1.leidenuniv.nl (L. Mekenkamp)
Subject: Re: Simple CPU Questions
Organization:  Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science ; Univ. of Leiden ; the Netherlands
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:17:14 GMT

>>	The released of 486-SX is used to offer a high performance CPU and
>>same price of AMD 386-40. The Co-process in the die is disabled by intel.
>>Because those die a selected from 486 production line that the co-processor
>>part was failed during production.
>>
	>I believe this is incorrect.  The 486SX is physically different from
>the 486DX.  The 486SX is NOT a 486DX whose coprocessor circuits do not work
>due to some defect and is sold as such.

I believe the first 486SX chips *were* in fact 486DX chips with the copro
disabled. Intel used another design in later versions of the SX

Leo Mekenkamp

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: gryphon@openage.openage.com (The Golden Gryphon)
Subject: 486 SX/16 overdrive info
Organization: Open Age, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 13:30:10 GMT


I posted a few weeks ago that I wanted an overdrive processor for my Compaq
486s/16m.  This uses a 486 sx/16 chip.  Many people said, "You can't do this,"
including Compaq.  They were wrong.

I talked to Intel, and I need a 486 SX/20 overdrive procssor.  This gives me a
486, 487, 8kb cache, and memory manager all running at a max of 40MHz
internally, which will be 32Mhz in my machine.  Instead of a new processor
board from Compaq at $1500, I get the same thing for $349.

-- 
The Golden Gryphon 				gryphon@openage.COM
"Mad Scientists seeks mindless brawny assistants, good pay, quiet location."
"They're not ghosts,  they're metaphysically challenged." - Me
Openage - The Premier SCO UNIX integrator in the Washington D.C. area
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: P24T-compatible Overdrive Sockets?
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:17:45 GMT

I've heard that some overdrive sockets will accept P24T (Pentium)
chips and that these sockets have an extra row of pins. Could someone
confirm this and provide further details? Thanks.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
                        Happy Holidays to ALL!!!
From: wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe)
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:29:35 GMT

In article <82960@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>I don't understand why they would be so ticked, if the technology is moving
>into the rest of the family, that would give the companies even more options
>to choose from and still be able to maintain the low power requirements that
>they need.
>Did the 486SL have different pin-outs or something from the rest of the
>486 family?

The SL chips were harder to design with and more expensive. Also, consider
that using an SL chip provided some product differentiation over your stock
SX or DX laptop or notebook. Many have gone down the path designing for this
particular variant, and don't appreciate having their engineering efforts
wiped out in one fell swoop by Intel.

-- 
William H. Beebe, Jr. - wbeebe@bilver.UUCP
                 UUCP - {ucf-cs,peora,uunet}!tarpit!bilver!wbeebe
                      - bilver Public Access Unix, Orlando FL
                      - (407)644-8327  2400/9600  24 hours  8N1
From: matthias@nsr.hp.com (Matthias Kamm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:50:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Santa Clara Site
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpmvd069.nsr.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.2 PL7]

Dennis O'Connor (doconnor@sedona.intel.com) wrote:
: This is an idiotic rumor. No part in the 960 architecture will EVER
: replace the x86 line. Where did you hear such lunacy ? 
:

Now remain calm.  Geez, these subjects really touch a nerve sometimes ;-)

Intel is making tons on the 486, so may not be motivated to release
the 586 immediately, but they won't cancel it!  The 586 may be delayed
to be a more effective "AMD buster" or "Cyrix Killer."  They're probably
stockpiling, or enhancing it somehow.  Remember, there were working 586
systems running at Comdex.  Intel would RUIN it's relations with it's
customers to cancel the chip now. 

Absolutely won't happen...

Someone on this thread worked at Intel (at the Fab?).  Maybe they 
could verify this.  Working on process corner enhancements Intel
people?

=================================================================
Matthias Kamm                    Hewlett Packard                |
matthias@hpmvd069.nsr.hp.com     Mountain View CA               |
The opinions expressed above are mine, not my employer's.       |
=================================================================
From: penney@cl-next4.msu.edu (Chris Penney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 8 Jan 1993 15:42:36 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cl-next4.cl.msu.edu

In article <1993Jan6.235812.18764@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David  
Feustel) writes:
> I heard a rumor today that Intel is seriously thinking about
> scrapping the Pentium for another chip architecture (the 960mx?). Can
> anyone confirm/deny/amplify this rumor?
> -- 
> Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
>  
>                         Happy Holidays to ALL!!!

Maybe this time they'll get a better name...

-=Chris=-
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Parity on iAPX x86 chips
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:10:02 GMT



I've noticed that most of the x86 chips I have programmed have a Parity
bit.  I was just wondering if they actually compute this every time an
operation is done, or if they just get this from memory (ie, is the parity
bit valid after EVERY operation, or just loads from memory...?)

Toodlepip!
Marc 'em.
-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         "-- Attack ships on
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA             fire "
	Any opinions expressed are not mine, but those of the Demon Lord
      Yeegeheeegenogohugu who possessed me whilst I munched on Raisin Bran.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: hm@opus40.ix.de (Harald Milz)
Subject: Re: Simple CPU Questions
Organization: iX-Redaktion
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:45:17 GMT


|> I believe the first 486SX chips *were* in fact 486DX chips with the copro
|> disabled. Intel used another design in later versions of the SX
|> 

Yes, Leo. Actually, Intel had problems with their early 486DX's
that wouldn't work even at 25 MHz. They un-bonded the copro and
named it 486SX. Today, it's intended to beat the Am386-40.

-- 
| 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 | 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill)
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:00:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.235812.18764@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> I heard a rumor today that Intel is seriously thinking about
> scrapping the Pentium for another chip architecture (the 960mx?). Can
> anyone confirm/deny/amplify this rumor?

	We can only hope ! At least then there may be some fab space and
a few Engineers available to offer somewhere to go after the 960CA/F.
But that would be a sensible engineering approach, wouldn't it ?

	Graeme Gill

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill Henning)
Subject: Re: 486SL dropped, vendors test Cyrix
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:27:51 GMT

In article <C0HsJp.ALy@inews.Intel.COM> rskinner@mipos2.intel.com (Rod Skinner) writes:
>
>Machine				Processor/MHz		SYSmark92
>Compaq LTE Lite/25c		Intel386 sl-25MHz	51.90
>NEC PowerMate 3x25a		Intel386 sx-25MHz	51.60
>PC Brand LeaderBook 486LC/25	Cyrix 486slc-25MHz	48.69
>TI TravelMate WinSLC		Cyrix 486slc-25MHz	47.23
>Aspen Personal 486		Cyrix 486slc-25MHz	43.65
>Keydata Keynote 486slc-25	Cyrix 486slc-25MHz	43.55
>Compaq Prolinea 3/25 2s		Intel386 sx-25MHz 	41.35 **
>Micro Express NB486slc/25	Cyrix 486slc-25MHz	41.15
>Grid 1755/486slc		Cyrix 486slc-25MHz	37.31
>
>** no cache (on or off chip)

A SYSmark92 of 48.69 for the PC Brand LeaderBook 486LC/25 (the fastest
486SLC figure you posted) vs. the SYSmark92 of 51.90 for the Compaq
LTE Lite/25c (486SL) makes for a difference of about 7%.

This is somewhat misleading, as this is not a purely CPU benchmark.

>It just means that you need to be careful when buying a machine that has
>the numbers "486" on the name plate.  The system may have 486 in the
>name and may execute "all the 486 instructions" but the thing that is
>missing is 486 performance.  That may change for the Cyrix 486DLC but I
>don't have any application performance results that would allow me to
>may any conclusions other than to expect Cyrix 486DLC performance 
>similar to the Intel386 DX at equivalent frequencies.

Rod, I can't let that pass without a comment. Intel builds some truly
excellent CPU's, and I am looking forward to the Pentium (R) but please
do not equate a Cyrix 486DLC with an Intel 386DX at the same clock speed.
Even a 486SLC beats a 386DX at the same clock speed according to some
benchmarks I've seen.

I believe that a 486DX, or SX, or SL is faster then the 486DLC at the
same clock speed - makes a lot of sense, 8k cache vs. 1k cache ought
to mean 80%+ hit ratio vs. 60%+ hit ratio, but I refuse to believe 
that a 486DLC even with the only 1k cache will not beat a 386DX at
the same clock frequency, probably by a factor of 2.

>rod
>
>Rod Skinner				I speak for myself only.
>Intel Corp
>2200 Mission College Blvd RN4-21          PH (408) 765-4474
>Santa Clara, CA 95052                     FAX (408) 765-4920
From: bae@hplsdrn.col.hp.com (Bruce Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Power output/usage of an Intel 386DX (at any clock rate)
Date: 04 Jan 1993 07:42:15 MST
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Logic Systems Operation
NNTP-Posting-Host: hplsdrn.col.hp.com

In comp.sys.intel, Eric A. Raymond writes:
> Does anyone have info on the power usage/dissipation of an Intel 386
> DX at any clock rate (I assume it will scale linearly to the 1st order
> approx)? 
> 
> I've looked in the big Intel  microprocessor source book and couldn't
> find the answer.

You need to look in the small book (the one with the timing information
and DC/AC specifications)....

Icc @ CLK2=40MHz: 500mA    2.5W @ 5V
           50     550      2.75W
           66     550      2.75W (other specs on the 66MHz part imply
                                 Intel played games to get this speed, which
                                 is probably why the power consumption is
                                 not linear with frequency here!)

I suspect that this specification is with no current loads on its outputs,
so be sure to include that in your calculations.  Note also that the
PGA package is only specified to run up to 85C with a Case-to-Ambient theta
of 19 C/Watt -- so you'd better consider a fan and/or a heat sink!


                  - Bruce Erickson
                     Hewlett Packard
                     bae@col.hp.com
From: tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:31:14 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <dbarber.726545382@crash.cts.com> dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>Maybe they'll wait and try to get a clock-doubling Pentium running.
>That would be a nice surprise.

That would definitely be a big surprise... not too many companies have
the ability to make a 100+MHz part manufacturable.  At that frequency
and with typical technology, the internal clocks stop being sinewaves
and start being static :)  That doesn't mean that something couldn't
be demonstrated or produced in small quantities with big losses being
made up elsewhere or with the requirements to use a liquid cooled heat
sink :)

-- 
|Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer|tom.barrett@amd.com|v:512-462-6856 |
|AMD PCD MS-520 | 5900 E. Ben White|Austin, TX  78741  |f:512-462-5155 |
|"No is yes, And we're all free" ---Tracy Chapman, "Why?"              |
|My views are my own and may not be the same as the company of origin  |
From: kholland@hydra.unm.edu (Kiernan Holland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: WHAT is a E486DX2-66?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:01:19 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.unm.edu

In article <1993Jan6.145038.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> schludermann@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:
>what is the E486dx2-66?

Buying from fast micro or what?

Well, that would be a EISA based 486-33 with the clock doubler, right?
I heard EISA is not worth the trouble. If you can find a 
computer with the ZIF CPU connector and a 486, you can probably upgrade
to the pentinum when it comes out.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 486SX-25, UMC or SIS chipset?
From: kodagali@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:49:33 CST
Organization: Wichita State University, Wichita, Ks

Hi,
  I have an option of buying a 486SX-25 with a UMC chipset or a SIS chipset.
Which one should I go for? Both of them are upgradable to a 486DX2-50.

Thanks for your time.
---------------------------------------------
Email: kodagali@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu

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