HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jon@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jon Mellott)
Subject: Re: RapidCAD CoProcessor
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 17:20:08 GMT

As I recall seeing it, the RapidCAD 386 was some flavor of 
486, and the RapidCAD 387 was basically a dummy part to fill
your 387 socket. I think that this was in the Microbytes 
section of byte a couple of months back, but don't hold me
to any of this information...

Jon Mellott
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: surendar@maxine.wpi.edu (Surendar C.)
Subject: Help with 80432
Originator: surendar@maxine.wpi.edu
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:46:39 GMT

Hi,
	I don't read this group often, so forgive me if this question
is not appropriate here.

One of friend was talking about this Intel 80432 chip, how it had 
some form of ADA as its machine language and that it had good support 
for multi-processors and such. However he said, that was in 1984. I
tried to look for info on that and couldn't come up with anything.
Does such a processor exist??? What happened to it??

Thanks a lot for any help
surendar
From: lokhate@aurora.unice.fr (LOKHATE Eric)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Intel 8259A
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:43:33 GMT
Organization: University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France


	Hi, everybody !

	I need information about 8259A programming, with a PC compatible
(registers, port addresses, etc.. ). Any documentation would be very
appreciated !  If you have something, please send me a mail.

	Thanks in advance, Eric.


Eric LOKHATE
University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis (France)

lokhate@aurora.unice.fr
OR
lokhate@taloa.unice.fr
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Subject: DX vs DX2
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:09:29 GMT

Hello all. I have a thing I wanted to verify with the Intel gurus on the
net since someone is asking me this very question and I wanted to double
check before I put my foot in my mouth...

Is it true that a 50 Mhz 486 DX is a true 50 mhz chip all in one.
Whereas DX2 is just 2 25mhz 486s, one sitting in the CPU socket, the
second sitting in the Weitek math coprocesser socket?
Thank you.

Thomas.
From: halljw@sage.cc.purdue.edu (John Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Processor Dates
Keywords: AMD INtel
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:44:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45362
Distribution: usa

Ok...I got the dates for most of the processor releases.  I would really like
as close to exact dates for the 80386 as you can get though.  I also need the
release dates for the 386 chip by AMD (and it's name).  

For trivia's sake, I'd also like to know when AMD developed the 386 (Approx).
I need to draw comparisons between the two companies and there R&D teams.
Actually...any other information regarding AMD and Intel as competing firms 
would be appreciated.  

Also...has anyone heard about Intel saying they're not continuing with their
current line of processors beyond the 80586?  If so, do you know into which
direction they're heading?  Are they convinced the PC market is over-developed
or are they just starting a new line of processors which are extremely 
different from the current design?

Thanx for all the mail so far.

John.
From: halljw@sage.cc.purdue.edu (John Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Release dates & other Trivia
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:50:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45100
Distribution: usa

Ok...Does anyone know the following facts about Intel and the personal computer
processor industry in general:

	1) The release dates for the 286, 386, 486 but each of the different
	   companies that made them.

	2) The current processor manufacturers (who is making what).

	3) Dates and information on Motorola processors (only the Apple ones).

	4) (Tough One) The current market share of each of the major personal
	   computer CPU manufacturers.
	 
	5) Who makes the Amiga processor? (Just curious)

I've been attempting to contact Intel's Public Relations people for the data
on their company, but of course they won't tell me about any of the other
companies that manufacture CPUs.  Keep in mind that the data I need is 
simply for PERSONAL COMPUTERS CPUs, not mainframes or any other types of 
processor.

Thanks,

John.
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Intel Microprocessor Step Numbers
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:34:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cup.57066
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Where can I find information on differences between step numbers for 386SX,
386SL, 386DX, and 486 Microprocessors? The data books don't seem to cover
this.
From: apj@sunvax.sun.ac.za (Andries Dippenaar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486 transistor count, linesize
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:37:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunvax.apj.28
Organization: University of Stellenbosch

In article <10308@inews.intel.com> dpeterso@mipos2.intel.com (David Peterson) writes:

>In article <1992Mar31.033110.28110@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar26.124338.24482@email.tuwien.ac.at> volker@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Volker Hamann) writes:
>>
>>>Wharton in "BYTE Nov. 1989", the 486 uses 1-micron high-speed CMOS technology
>>                                           ^^^^^^^^
>>I thought the 486 is currently being built with .8 micron die size. At least
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>>William H. Beebe, Jr. - wbeebe@bilver.UUCP

>  Here's what I know of the subject, which is not much :-). Intel is always
>trying to shink mature (and not so mature) products. The reason for this is
>that a smaller die size improves yeild. I don't know what the present process
>is for 486's, but since this device has been around for a couple of years 
>I'm sure that it's been shrunk at least once.

As I recall, the original 486-25's were built using 1 micron technology, but 
that from the 486-33 were redesigned to use the new .8 micron manufaturing 
process.

Andries
*******************************************************************************
**        /|~~\  **  APJ Dippenaar         ** "If you wanna make the world a **
**      /__|__/  **  apj@sunvax.sun.ac.za  **   better place, take a look at **
**    /    |     **  Univ of Stellenbosch  **   yourself and make a change." **
**  /   \__|     **  South Africa          **             -- Michael Jackson **
*******************************************************************************
From: choup@bionette.cgrb.orst.edu (Ping Chou -- Biochemistry and Biophysics)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 386SX or 386SL
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:36:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Biological Computing Consortium, OSU, Corvallis, OR.


        While people are looking at 50 MHz 486 PC, I have to fall back
        and choose either 386SX or 386SL, 20 MHz. Because I'm going to
        get a notebook.

        I understand that cache, memory and AT-bus controllers and
        EMS 4.0 hardware are intergrated into the SL chip, as well as
        its lower power capability. What bothers me is that

        1. Since SX is able to address 4 GB in protect mode, and there
        are so many EMS 4.0 drivers been implemented for use by programs
        running in real mode, what's the logic to put it into a chip?

        2. If the built-in AT-bus controller is of ISA, isn't it true
        that an EISA or MCA motherboard would still need its own bus
        controller?

        3. And, exactly what is the memory controller for?

        4. It appears that every 386SL notebook comes with 64 K cache,
        but not for 386SX. So I suppose the motherboard does take the
        advantage of the cache controller. But how about the other two
        controller and the EMS hardware? Any one know any hardware or
        software design does use these SL features?

        5. I also suppose the BIOS has to take care of the power saving
        functions of SL chip, but then, any information about the make,
        version, date and marks of current available BIOS chip? Or is it
        just a patch (like video bios) to a regular BIOS?

        So, any thing you can teach me? Please post it, and thanks.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: bourne-linda@CS.YALE.EDU (Linda Bourne)
Subject: Alan J. Perlis Symposium
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:12:01 GMT

ALAN J. PERLIS SYMPOSIUM:  Parallel Computers of the Future

Sponsored by the Department of Computer Science, Yale University

April 23, 1992

Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall
Room 114
Corner Grove and Prospect Streets
New Haven, Connecticut


Morning Session (9:30-11:00)

	Opening Remarks
		Drew McDermott
		Chairman, Yale CS

	"Dataflow Architectures:  From Monsoon to *T"
		Arvind
		Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Afternoon Session (1:30-4:30)

	"PRAMs:  Theory, Physical Design, and Application"
		Wolfgang Paul
		University of Saarbrucken

	"Will Parallel Architectures Converge?"
		H.T. Kung
		Carnegie-Mellon University



Following the last talk a public reception will be held at the
Department of Computer Science, Arthur K. Watson Hall.

All talks are free and open to the public.

For further information please call (203) 432-1246.
-------

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: kunkee@ferranti.com (randy kunkee)
Subject: Vendors of Multibus II chasis/cardcages
Organization: Unix/Xenix Support Group
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:36:36 GMT

I'm looking for 3rd party (non-Intel) vendors of Multibus II
cardcages and chasis (cardcages + power supplies and bays for
drives).  If you know of one, please send me any information
you have.

Please reply via email.  If there is interest, I'll post a summary.

Thanks in advance.

Randy
-- 
Randy Kunkee
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
12808 W. Airport Blvd.  Sugar Land, TX 77478
UUCP: uupsi!ficc!kunkee       ph: (713) 274-5132
INTERNET: kunkee@ferranti.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: kevin@research.canon.oz.au (Kevin Wong)
Subject: JEIDA ROM Emulator ?
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:08:10 GMT

Does anyone know of the existence of a JEIDA ROM card emulator with a
SCSI interface ?
Any suggestions on where to start looking would be greatly appreciated.


-- 
Kevin Wong                                   | kevin@research.canon.oz.au
Canon Information Systems Research Australia | Phone +61 2 805 2000
PO Box 313 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113               | Fax   +61 2 805 2929
From: dpeterso@mipos2.intel.com (David Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Intel's next generation microprocessor
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:30:59 GMT
Reply-To: dpeterso@mipos2.UUCP (David Peterson)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Mar26.194346.1404@saans.north.de> rolf@saans.north.de (Rolf Nerstheimer) writes:
>scst52@csc.liv.ac.uk (Mr. A.M. Blanchard) writes:
>
>>ckashuba@chimi.ucdavis.edu (Chris Kashuba) writes:
>>: ... deleted ...
>
>Hmmm, 
>IMHO Intel already produces the P7 Chip. I think, P7 is the name of
>the 80960 processor, they developed for BiiN ( the joint venture company
>of Intel and Siemens, located in Hillsboro/Oregon ) some years ago.
>Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
>
>Regards,
>Rolf

Here's your correction: P# is a name used internally to identify a project
until the resulting product is officialy named. P7 may have been a development
project of the past, but once that product was released the name P7 was
available for use again. 
This is just my understanding of the system, I may be wrong. Hmmm, anybody
at Intel watching? Can two projects have the same name at the same time;
is there corporate control over project names?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Peterson 
Intel Corp., M/S SC4-69, 2625 Walsh Ave.
Santa Clara, Ca. 95052-9940
From: au141@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Amber M. Spillers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: pushing an 80386DX 20+%
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:11:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr15.151140.29257
Reply-To: au141@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Amber M. Spillers)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


  Recently I have noticed a few intel 30386DX motherboards have been
using pushed chips.  I spoke to the seller regarding this and he assured
me that they "test" the boards before they sell them by running win 3.0
in 386 enhanced for a few hours.  if the board passes without hanging it
is "good".  well I have SERIOUS doubts, I rember when the 25 mhz 80386's
were first comming out and a lot of machines were sold with pushed
chips.  but I have not seen it since then.  the exact specs on the
pushing is: a 16mhz running at 20 OR 25 mhz.  

   my question is this: how does intel test their chips?  the boards I
saw were running ok but I am not to trusting in them.  I wouls like to
be able to discuss the pushing of the chips with the seller but I really
don't know how intel decides if a chip is 25mhz or not.  if anyone could
give me an answer ot tell me a source where I can get some objective
literature on pushing the chips I would be most gratefull.  and since I
do not usually read this news group could any responses be made in
E-Mail.  thank you for your help in this matter.


-- 
"Stay Sane Inside Insanity" -- The Rocky Horror Picture Show
sysop of the Rocky Horror Picture Show BBS 1-618-529-5999 24Hrs
USR Dual Standard ** programming support ** NON-Etherealized
From: lokhate@aurora.unice.fr (LOKHATE Eric)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Intel 8250 and 8259A
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:16:10 GMT
Organization: University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France


	I need information about the 8250 and the 8259A registers, port
addresses, etc... with a PC compatible.

	If you have any documentation, please send me a mail.

	Thanks in advance, Eric.


      	         ____________ 
      		/           /|
       	       /___________/ |  	   
               |           | |
               | Hi,       | |
       	       |	   | |__   
               | Everybody | / /|    
	       |	   |/ / |    Eric LOKHATE
	      /|___________| /  /    University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis
             /______________/  /     (France)
	     | 	   ___ ___ .| /
	     |______________|/       lokhate@aurora.unice.fr
	 ________________________    or
        / --- --- --- ---       /    lokhate@taloa.unice.fr
       / --- --- --- ---   --- / 
      /_______________________/
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: AMD - Intel lawsuit, the winner? AMD!
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:35:34 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <10173@inews.intel.com> dpeterso@mipos2.UUCP (David Peterson) writes:
>	By the way, AMD was seeking unconditional rights to the
>386 design. They did not recieve this. They are not allowed to
>use the design in any future products. Ho hum, I smell another 

There is no such thing as "the 386 design". There are several 386
designs and AMD received full and perpetual rights to the technology
embodied in the Am386 including the right to use that technology in
future products. As usual, Intel has been treating their employees like
mushrooms and feeding them half-truths.

Try reading Intel's Annual Report. Most of the document dances with
deception by omission but there is one section where they admit what
the consequences of the liability phase of the arbitration might be,
instead of simply repeating over and over that "AMD wasn't awarded the
386".*

* The deception by omission is that the arbitration was two phased,
liability and remedies. It was never intended that anyone be awarded
anything in the liability phase, that was for the remedies phase.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: LetsGetHelp on i860
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:31:48 GMT

kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.114648.21957@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
>>...Intel should have stuck to it's original idea of selling
>>the 860 as a special support chip for the i860, ...

>What does this mean? The 860 is the i860. What are you saying, that it was 
>orginaly going to be a support chip for itself? I don't get it.

>Michael

Some time ago, before the 486 came out, I read that Intel was working on a 
chip known as the "n10". I read that it would be a coprocessor for the 486,
and be 10 times as fast as it.

Recently I have noticed adds by Microway, which was promoting a system of
their's that can include 486 motherboards and a card that uses the Intel
80860 chip. They claimed gave MFLOP numbers for it, and said that it is 10
times as fast as a 486. 

Microway is obviously pushing the use of the 860 as a high speed coprocessor,
and I heard that in another ad (Byte apr. 92) they gave a list of 860 libraries.Somewhere else on this newsgroup someone talked about developing 860
routines or using 860 routines or something like that using the MS-DOS version
of something. Looks like he is following microway's idea. (but on another
system). 

So what is going on here? when the person above said Intel should have gone
along with their original idea of the 860 being support for the i860, did
he mean i486? How much are developers supporting this idea? Are they
following Microway's and the guy who used the "MS-DOS" version for
860 work's ideas? (excuse the wordy sentence) is the 860 even the former n10?
Can we expect more 486's and applications to support an 860 coprocessor?
If so, it sounds like a pretty good idea. 

Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
.
From: dpeterso@mipos2.intel.com (David Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486 transistor count, linesize
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:34:33 GMT
Reply-To: dpeterso@mipos2.UUCP (David Peterson)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Mar31.033110.28110@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
>In article <1992Mar26.124338.24482@email.tuwien.ac.at> volker@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Volker Hamann) writes:
>
>>Wharton in "BYTE Nov. 1989", the 486 uses 1-micron high-speed CMOS technology
>                                           ^^^^^^^^
>I thought the 486 is currently being built with .8 micron die size. At least
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^
>William H. Beebe, Jr. - wbeebe@bilver.UUCP

  Here's what I know of the subject, which is not much :-). Intel is always
trying to shink mature (and not so mature) products. The reason for this is
that a smaller die size improves yeild. I don't know what the present process
is for 486's, but since this device has been around for a couple of years 
I'm sure that it's been shrunk at least once.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Peterson 
Intel Corp., M/S SC4-69, 2625 Walsh Ave.
Santa Clara, Ca. 95052-9940
dpeterso@mipos3.intel.com
From: mdk@col.hp.com (Mark Keisling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: DX vs DX2
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:46:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: col.1992Apr16.184626.24134
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.191222.25016@intelhf.hf.intel.com> jmaster@pcocd2.intel.com writes:
> >There is a 50 Mhz 486 chip.  50 MHz inside and out.
> >
> >There is the DX2 series that will INTERNALLY (to the chip) double the frequency
> >from 25 or 33 MHz to 50 or 66 MHz (respectively).  External timings however are
> >25 or 33 Mhz.  Just pull the old chip out, put this one in.  Now there is a
> >new setup using a doubler chip, and I don't know much of anythign about this 
> >setup.  It does NOT use the Weitek socket (If I understand this correctly).
> >The board manufacturers will have to put a second socket on board.
> >
> 
> Didn't I read somewhere that Intel is coming out with a chip that can
> sit in the Weitek socket? So that it can offload work from the main
> cpu? And doubles the speed of the system? This is meant as an upgrade
> offer for the existing 486s out there. Didn't anyone else read something
> like this? Thanks.
> 
> Thomas.
> 

The upgrade path that Intel is recommending is for the motherboard 
manufacturers to provide an upgrade socket on the motherboard.
This socket is different than the Weitek socket.  Intel plans to put
the 486DX2 in two different packages.  One package has the identical
pinout to the 486DX.  The other package has a pinout compatible with
their specification for the upgrade socket.  This upgrade socket
strategy started with systems built around the 486SX.  The upgrade
socket in these systems allowed an end users to upgrade to the 486DX.

If you have a 486DX system that has a socketed 486DX, a compatible BIOS,
and enough ventilation to keep the DX2 cool, then you could buy the
486DX2 and replace your 486DX with it.  You can also try selling your
spare 486DX.  

I have not heard of an Intel 486 that is pin compatible with the Weitek 
socket.  

Mark Keisling
mdk@col.hp.com
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 19:02:22 EDT
From: Richard Jack <32FZT5Q@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 586?? when available?? where Motherboards??

thats all.. anybody have a clue??
Thanks
rlj
From: drchip@cup.portal.com (MYRON A LIEBERMAN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Weitek or Intel?
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:29:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cup.57064
  <1APR199220323074@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> Weitek will still cost you big bucks...
I don't know about that. Krueger has been offering Weitek 3167s (25 MHz)
for prices very significantly below 80387 prices. These are from an OEM's
consigned inventory and not part of Krueger's refurbished part inventory.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: jmaster@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Justin Masters)
Subject: Re: DX vs DX2
Reply-To: jmaster@pcocd2.intel.com
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 19:12:22 GMT

twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:

>Hello all. I have a thing I wanted to verify with the Intel gurus on the
>net since someone is asking me this very question and I wanted to double
>check before I put my foot in my mouth...

>Is it true that a 50 Mhz 486 DX is a true 50 mhz chip all in one.

There is a 50 Mhz 486 chip.  50 MHz inside and out.

There is the DX2 series that will INTERNALLY (to the chip) double the frequency
from 25 or 33 MHz to 50 or 66 MHz (respectively).  External timings however are
25 or 33 Mhz.  Just pull the old chip out, put this one in.  Now there is a
new setup using a doubler chip, and I don't know much of anythign about this 
setup.  It does NOT use the Weitek socket (If I understand this correctly).
The board manufacturers will have to put a second socket on board.

>Whereas DX2 is just 2 25mhz 486s, one sitting in the CPU socket, the
>second sitting in the Weitek math coprocesser socket?
>Thank you.

>Thomas.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: LetsGetHelp on i860
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:53:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.114648.21957@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:
>...Intel should have stuck to it's original idea of selling
>the 860 as a special support chip for the i860, ...

What does this mean? The 860 is the i860. What are you saying, that it was 
orginaly going to be a support chip for itself? I don't get it.

Michael



-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty