HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486SL dropped, vendors test Cyrix
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <C0E0zB.DwG@inews.Intel.COM>, rskinner@mipos2.intel.com (Rod Skinner) writes:

| I think that the PC Week article states that Intel is incorporating the
| features into its main product lines.  That would imply a stronger
| commitment to these features than a product designed for portable
| computing.  

  I read that as "most of the features." As far as I can tell from the
two articles I've seen, these will still be 5v rather than 3.3v parts.
Correct me if you have access to more info than I do.

| 
| Another interesting article comparing the Intel486 SX processor and the
| Cyrix SLC is in InfoWorld December 21 page 48 "Reviews/Product
| Comparisons: 25-MHz 486 Notebooks".  InfoWorld seems to come to the
| conclusion that the Intel486 SX processors are 35% to 40% FASTER than
| the Cyrix parts.  They use several examples but the most powerful is two
| machines from TI: TravelMate 4000 WinSX/25 and the TravelMate WinSLC.
| Both weigh 6 pounds with battery.  Similarly configured machines yield
| SYSmark92 results of 75.93 (Intel486 SX) and 47.23 (Cyrix).  They
| indicate that Cyrix system "posted a SYSmark92 close to 38 percent
| slower than its 486SX/25 sibling."

  That sounds reasonable. There is a significant performance penalty in
the SLC due to smaller cache and lack of burst mode memory access. That
was one of the reasons people wanted the SL, for better performance and
lower power.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
From: callahan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486dx, 486sx, 386sx
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:37:26 GMT
Distribution: comp.sys.intel
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1993Jan6.134604.3089@shearson.com>, lparisi@shearson.com (Lon G. Parisi) writes:
> Hello all,
> I know this question has been perpetuated over and over, but with so many
> responses and opinions, I have to ask. What is the difference between
> the 486sx and 486dx.  I have called Intel directly. The have told be that
> 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.

In fact the instruction set architecture (including the privileged part
used by operating systems) of the 386sx differs only in minor respects
from that of a top-of-the-line 486DX2/66.  Meanwhile it differs dramatically
from that of a 286.  So, IMHO, it makes more sense to describe a 486DX2/66
as a 'glorified 386sx' than it does to say what Intel apparently told you.

Anyway, to answer your question, the difference between a 486SX and a 486DX
is that the DX has a built-in math coprocessor, and the 486SX doesn't.

Michael
---
Michael Callahan
callahan@vax.ox.ac.uk
callahan@math.harvard.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:50:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan8.142619.14531@bilver.uucp> wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) writes:

>Never say never. Intel announced it was phasing out the i486SL, and moving
>that technology to all it's i486 family. That minor product reordering
>ticked off a number of major customer's (NEC, Compaq, etc) who were
>designing notebooks around the SL.

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?
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:52:43 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Intel ASTG, Santa Clara, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Thomas D. Barrett (tdbear@dvorak.amd.com) wrote:

> Most people can't seem to decide if [Pentium] is some sort of metal or if
> they should say a prayer before approaching it. :)

	It's both!  It's a hunk of metal that should be worshipped!


--
D. J. McCarthy (dmccart@gomez.intel.com)

#include :-).h
From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:43:42 GMT

hwrvo@kato.lahabra.chevron.com (W.R. Volz) writes:
>I heard a very faint rumor that the p5 would not be released and they would
>go on to the p6 instead. It makes sense. They are still making a good profit
>on the 486 series, the high end CPU's haven't been cloned yet, they've won
>a court case that makes cloning harder. Why should they release the p5?
>They're making money hand over foot and the competetion can't keep up.
Are you sure this rumor did not originate from a misreading of Mac & IBM Info
Version 1.0? (Now avalable anonymous ftp on sumex-aim.stanford.edu (36.44.0.6)
in the /info-mac/report directory as mac-ibm-compare.txt)
To whit:
"PowerPC   = PowerPC {This is the only CPU to be used by both IBM and
Apple and is planned to run programs from DOS, Windows 3.x, OS/2 and Mac OS 
on top of PowerOpen-AU/X 4.0 [UNIX] and later Taligent OS by using emulators 
or, if necessary, the OSes themselves in a 'shell'-like SoftPC does for DOS 
on the Mac. [Since both the PowerPC and the OS [PowerOpen] for it are a year 
ahead of schedule it could give the Pentium and 68060 chips a run for the 
money.]}"
VaperWare {A collection of rumors from many computer magazines} has said nothing
about the Pentium (p5) not being relieced.  In fact there has been next to
nothing about the chip since the anouncment that "It is to be out in 1st 
quarter 1993 (InfoWorld July 27/92; Vaporware 9/92)."
It would make little sence for Intel to drop the Pentium chip with
Apple puting the PowerPC chip into NuBus cards for its "A-list" developers
and IBM planning to put the PowerPC chip in machine in early 1993
(InfoWorld August 3, 92; Vaporware 9/92; PC Week Dec 7/92, and MacWeek 12/14/92)
This sounds like a misreading of an old version of Mac & IBM info which said
something on the order that the Pentium and 60060 could fail against the 
more robust PowerPC {The present version does not have this line in it.}
because Intel droping the Pentium with the PowerPC already out is total
insanity UNLESS the chip is not working like they promiced.

"Eliminate the impossible and what ever remains, no matter how improbable,
is the truth" -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle through Sherlock Holmes in The 
Adventure of the Beryl Coronet, The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier, Sign 
of Four and The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans.
From: joker@diku.dk (Morten Christian Holmgreen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: What's the status of IBM's DX3 ???
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:42:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

Does anybody know what the status of IBM's clock-tripler is? When
will the 486DX3-99 be released?

Christian
-- 
M. Christian Holmgreen / joker@diku.dk / mochmch@uts.uni-c.dk
M.Sc. student, University of Copenhagen, Dept. of Computer Science
"Human errors can only be avoided if one can avoid the use of humans"
From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:48:31
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: feustel@netcom.com's message of Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:58:12 GMT


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?

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

There are more x86-family projects in the works at Intel than
you can shake a stick at. x86 will be the architecture of
Intel's main processor line for years. Dr. Grove says so, and
it also makes sense, so it's probably true.

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.
--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: wolff@erasmus.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Subject: Re: 960 XA/MX Questions
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 17:37:11 GMT

graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill) writes:

>In article <MKAHN.93Jan7074846@hopi.sedona.intel.com>, mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn) writes:
>> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>>  Nntp-Posting-Host: auspex.auspex.com
>> ]
>> ] >As of this time, we have no plans to sell the XA/MX products
>> ] >for commercial uses.
>> ] Why not?  (Technical, or Marketoon(TM), reasons?)
>> 
>> Marketoon(tm) reasons to be exact. There is very little demand
>> for products with the capabilities of the MX/XA outside of the
>> military. 

>	From this I gather that graphics (ie. Xterminals) and multi-media
>do not amount to much demand. I guess this just means that the next generation
>product won't be using 960s in them ...

>	Graeme Gill

I am not sure what the 960MX/XA have that the 960CA doesn't, but our Xterminals
seem to run just fine with the CA. As far as I know, there exists 960's
with floating point coprocessors that are Military only like the MX/XA.
Isn't the X protocol completely floating point free as to make a floating
point coprocessor useless in such an environment?


							Roger.
-- 
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: pcarmack@gimp.kpc.com (Phil Carmack)
Subject: Re: Pentium to be Scrapped?!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:24:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.203114.27572@dvorak.amd.com>, tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett) writes:
|> 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 :)

DEC's 150MHz Alpha based systems are running just fine for us in an 
air-cooled system (OK the heat sync is fairly large).  

|> 
|> -- 
|> |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  |

-- 
Philip Carmack				| pcarmack@kpc.com	(408)987-3336
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.		|
From: mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 960 XA/MX Questions
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:48:46 GMT
	<MKAHN.93Jan6090215@hopi.sedona.intel.com> <16258@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
Organization: i960(r) New Product Development, Chandler AZ

guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:

 Nntp-Posting-Host: auspex.auspex.com
]
] >As of this time, we have no plans to sell the XA/MX products
] >for commercial uses.
]
] Why not?  (Technical, or Marketoon(TM), reasons?)
]

Marketoon(tm) reasons to be exact. There is very little demand
for products with the capabilities of the MX/XA outside of the
military. 

In fact, these days there's very little demand within the
military :-).

--
|  Mitch Kahn              | "I hope you know that this will go down on |
|  mkahn@sedona.intel.com  |  your permanent record..."                 |
*************************MY OWN OPINIONS*********************************
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Finding someone at Intel
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:44:57 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1is353INNd6s@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> penney@cl-next4 (Chris Penney) writes:
>Can someone tell me how to findout the e-mail address of someone working 
>for Intel.  I've tried the stuff in Gopher.  

Dial 1-408-765-8080 and ask the operator nicely for the
person you seek; get connected to the person; ask nicely
for his or her email address.

That's really the only efficient method.

				--Blair
				  "Operating internally at 66 MHz."
From: xchen@staccato.rutgers.edu (Xinghao Chen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 486SX/25 vs. 386DX/33
Keywords: 486SX/25 vs. 386DX/33
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:06:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


In purchasing a mother board, I have to make a choice amoung the following:

1. A 386DX/33 mother board with 64KB cache. There are 8 RAM module
   slots. The price is about $170. In the normal mode, it is about 
   18MHz. In the turbo mode, it is at 52 MHz. This board has a
   socket for a math co-processor. 
  
2. A 486SX/25 mother board with no cache. Also 8 RAM module slots.
   The price is about $200. In the normal mode, it is about 22 MHz. In
   the turbo mode, it is at 84 MHz. I was also told that I can late
   update to 486DX/50 (the mother board has a socket for a 486DX/50 chip)
   by pluging in a 486DX/50 and upgrading the crystal. 

It seems to me that choice 2 is more cost-effective. The only thing
bothers me is the fact that it has no cache on the mother board.

I may use the PC for running MicroSoft Windows 3.1, load it with
MicroSoft DOS 5.0, do some image captures (grabbing), practice with a 
relational data base packege, play with multi-media application such
as viewing TVs and games.

Wath would be your choice? 

Thanks for your advice. Please reply by email.

  -Chen    xchen@caip.rutgers.edu
 


  
   
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:02:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.235116.18812@husc3.harvard.edu> jiu1@husc11.harvard.edu (Haibin Jiu) writes:

>Who ever said Microsoft Windoze [3.1] is a fast performer?  If you
>want a fast GUI on the Intel platform, check out OS/2 2.x....

I do. OS/2 faster than Windows 3.1? Hmm that depends. You definitely take
a hit when running Windows apps. Its also worth mentioning that drivers for
the fast accelerated video cards are often unavailable, so much so that
I've actually seen people advocating the use of Trident 8900 video as 
"viable." *groan*.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: schludermann@sscvx1.ssc.gov
Subject: WHAT is a E486DX2-66?
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:50:38 GMT

what is the E486dx2-66?
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 960 XA/MX Questions
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:31:11 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>	MC : core + FPU + MMU, mil-spec
>	XA : MC	+ object-oriented tagged architecture, mil-spec

I.e., the BiiN machines all used mil-spec chips? :-)

>Note that none of the commercial parts are the same die as 
>any of the military parts : that would cost too much.

I seem to remember Steve McGeady implying that, at least in some sense,
the KA, KB, MC, and XA all used the same die, even though the dies on
the mil-spec versions might be more rigorously tested.  The XA may have
an extra pin or so for the tag bit.
From: cyberman@exucom.com (Stephen R. Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486dx, 486sx, 386sx
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:00:12 GMT
Distribution: comp.sys.intel
Organization: ExuCom Multimedia Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Lon G. Parisi (lparisi@shearson.com) wrote:
: Hello all,
: I know this question has been perpetuated over and over, but with so many
: responses and opinions, I have to ask. What is the difference between
: the 486sx and 486dx.  I have called Intel directly. The have told be that
: 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. 

	386sx a glorified 286?  NOT!  Quite untrue it's a 386 with a
16 bit buss and limited addressing.  Other than that it's a full 32 bit
processor internally.  If they told you that, then gee let's wonder about
whatever else they told  you :)

: Assuming what I have stated is fairly accurate, the next question I have is
: the wait state of a computer.  How do you know what machines have zero
: wait states. I am in the market for a new PC (got to replace the old XT) and
: am considering a Packard Bell 486sx with SVGA monitor and 1meg SVGA card 4meg
: ram and a 25Mhz clock speed. This is just for my home to do small "check-book"
: type spread sheets, some light database work, games, etc. Now of course the
: salespeople tell me that the 486sx is going to fall short of my needs. I can't
: see why anyone would ever release any machine that could not satisfy those 
: light needs, do you?  Unless there is something I am not aware of like
: slow graphics due to the SVGA or something like that.  I would greatly
: appreciate any responses especially if you are familiar with the Packard Bell
: machine itself.

	The problem with speed in SVGA has little if anything to do with
proccessor speed it in fact has to do with bus width and memory speed to
the VGA card.  ISA is limited to 8mhz and 16 bits.  So if you want video
performance get a local bus mother board.   this is 32bits at proccessor
speed.  Translated 32bits @ processor speed.  So a 33 mhz 486 at 32 bits
would have at least 8.25 times the speed of an ISA based board.

This of course requires you to have a local bus video card.

Cyberman
-- 
This is my sig file!
Read rec.games.programer!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: P24T-compatible Overdrive Sockets?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:56:44 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.
>>In the January 1993 PC Magazine, between pages 48-49 ZEOS Int'l has one
>>of those annoying, hard, glossy, 3-page, fold-out advertisements, and it
>>shows a picture of a Zero Insertion Force (ZIF) socket with the 486dx266
>>in it, and the caption says it is compatible with the new "Pentium-style"
>>CPU's due in 1993.  It has an extra row and column of pin-holes.
>So, the question is, how miserably will the Pentium perform on a normal 486
>motherboard? The Pentium is 100MHz (am I correct?), so, will it have built
>in clock doubling type hardware so it can talk to a everything else that is
>geared at 33/50MHz? What about the data path? Will the there be a couple
>of wait states so it can slice up the data and send it in little parcels to
>the Pentium?

I am under the impression that the "P24T" is more like a Pentium "SX".

I know Intel is making specs on the P24T, or at least specs on a socket
that will accept the chip, available to just about anyone.

I was thinking that the P24T will be a 33mhz chip, maybe 50mhz too, but
anyways...a 33mhz chip, running internally at 66mhz.  

Basically, I am thinking the P24T is just a slower version of the Pentium
which I have read will be first released in true 66mhz & 100mhz speeds.
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 960 XA/MX Questions
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:49:11 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>Using a 960 xa/mx to run a graphics terminal would be a waste. These
>chips have the capability to run major-league object oriented
>operating systems mostly in hardware.

Really?  The impression I got from the COMPCON 90 paper on BiiN/OS was
that it included rather a lot of software, and that only low-level stuff
was done by the chip's hardware or by (so-called-micro-)code on the
chip.

It did *more* in hardware and on-chip firmware than most systems, but I
get the impression that it did *less* on-chip, and left more up to
software, than the 432 did, for example.

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 14:26:19 GMT

In article <1iimlfINN7b1@hpscit.sc.hp.com> matthias@nsr.hp.com (Matthias Kamm) writes:

>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...

Never say never. Intel announced it was phasing out the i486SL, and moving
that technology to all it's i486 family. That minor product reordering
ticked off a number of major customer's (NEC, Compaq, etc) who were
designing notebooks around the SL. I've read where they're even looking
now at Cyrix because of it (although I tend not to believe everything I
read :). Intel will do whatever is in the best interests of Intel. If
Intel decides at the highest levels that it makes better sense to continue
to stretch the i486 architecture and quietly bypass the Pentium and release
the P6 (which is derivative of the P5, I'm sure), Intel could stomp
Cyrix, AMD, NextGen, and anybody else chasing after the P5. It would make
one hell of a marketing coup to be able to stay well ahead of NextGen's
rollout of their P5 clone by releasing the P6 when NextGen releases their
P5 clone. And Intel could re-establish themselves as the pre-eminant
X86 manufacturer _again_. AMD and Cyrix/TI would wind up being in the
commodity 386 chip game, with very low margins. That would be good for
Intel in the long run, since it would further spread 386 architecture
systems, bolstering software development for that platform, and
assuring continued support for some time to come.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel