Talk:Intel 8088

message: Does anyone know if the V-20 was a pin compatible version of the 8088? AQBachler 16:29, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was. It was also about 5% or so faster than a stock Intel chip, so it was a popular upgrade back in the day. -lee 05:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEC V20 compatible with the 8088? 

message: could s.o. tell when this chip was launched (and maybe when it was replaved by its successor)? thanks. — MFH: Talk 20:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Could any one tell me as to what is the reason / meaning of using 8088, 8086 etc  naming ssytem by intel ? 220.226.46.7 10:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  8088 processor 

message: The source for the claim that the IBM engineers wanted to use the 68000 for the IBM PC instead of the 8088 is Eric Raymond's jargon file.  I don't consider that a reliable source.  Indeed, I've read sources that state that in fact early in the development cycle IBM wanted to use an 8-bit CPU similar to the other microcomputers of the era, and was talked into using the sixteen bit 8088 by Microsoft.
Valency (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon File Citation 

message: A recent well-meaning edit changed
* the 80C88, ... could operate from DC to 8 MHz.
to
* the 80C88, ... could operate up to 8 MHz.
with the comment
"All CPUs operate on DC. Perhaps there was supposed to be a number here?"
Yes, all the CPUs I know about have DC power applied to their power pins.
However, that sentence in the article alludes to the clock pin, not the power pins.
Many CPUs have a "minimum frequency" on the clock pin for normal operation.
For example, the HCMOS 8086 has a minimum clock frequency of 2 MHz.
("TCLCL CLK Cycle Period: Max 500 ns" -- ).
A fully static core CPU, such as the 80C88, has a minimum clock frequency of 0 Hz (often called "DC", which can be confusing).
The dynamic logic (digital electronics) article has more information about the advantages of such fully static cores,
but I find it confusing to say "dynamic logic (digital electronics)" to refer to the advantages of static logic.
Is there a way to make this article (and other articles with static cores) less confusing without launching into exactly the same long explanation on each of them?
--DavidCary (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: just don't use the term "DC" in this sense, since people without the necessary specialist knowledge won't understand what is meant. I myself know a little about electronics, but this interpretation didn't occur to me, though in retrospect I see it makes sense. – Smyth\talk 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, in 16.66 ms, a modern CPU can do millions of operations.  I wonder why they don't work on AC? It would save all that hassle with switch mode power supplies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is because you have completely failed to understand what is being discussed.  Either that or you are resorting to your trademark sarcasm.  86.157.171.34 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ..but you can't tell the difference? Sorry about that...writing on the Wikipedia is supposed to be clear enough to be accessible to all. Did you notice  by the way? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for that edit to the article, Wtshymanski. I hope that makes it clear to everyone -- rather than, as is all too often the case, only understandable to people who already understand. --DavidCary (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

text: "Good writing is hard." If you don't know the subject, you can't write about it clearly ( you'll have no idea what's important and wnat's not).  If you do know the subject,you'll skip over the easy bits and get to the fascinating technicalities, thereby baffling the reader. Any time someone can actually understand a new subject from a Wikipedia article, an angel gets its wings. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  operate on DC 

message: I guess, it also had the same instruction-set as the 8086 or are there some differences/bugs? Sivicia (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the same. Ruslik_Zero 20:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  instruction set 

message: This article says the 8088 makes 3–5 MIPS at 10 MHz. Actually the IPC of this processor is 0.070 MIPS/MHz what means it can reach 700k instructions per second at 10 MHz. Source: Table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second
Most citated sources confirm that. 94.31.103.158 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance information