Should I go Athlon64 or Barton?

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:36:16 +1200, "Michael Brown"
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:04:33 +1200, "Michael Brown"
wrote:

keith wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:
keith wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:
[...]
Then 68000 which was defined by
Motorola as a 16 bit cpu is now define as a 32bit cpu.:-) 8088
(8/16) was defined by Intel as an 8 bit cpu.

No it was not.

Check data sheets fom the time period and you'll change your
mind.:-)

Post 'em.

Since we're talking about what Intel called the CPU, I think the
1983 Intel "Microprocessor and Processor and Peripheral Handbook"
ought to be a fairly authoritive reference. In there it's got the
"iAPX 86/10 16-Bit HMOS Microprocessor" and the "iAPX 88/10 8-bit
HMOS Microprocessor" (differing capitalisation of "bit" not a typo
by me). Similarly listed are the 80186 and 80188.

But did they?... call it a CPU?

Yes (in the 1983 datasheets, at least, as I don't have the 197x ones). It's
not really readable in the picture, but there is a line that says "Direct
Software Compatibility with iAPX 86/10 (8086 CPU)". There are also numerous
references in the datasheet to things like "CPU Functional Block Diagram",
"8088 CPU" (on the pinout diagram), "The CPU is also limited by the speed of
instruction prefetches." and so on.

There is no direct reference to it being an "8-bit CPU", the closest being
the line "The 8088 is an 8-bit processor designed around the 8086 internal
architecture."

When the microprocessors came along with an "operating system firmware" chip
(the 80130 or 80150, both of which actually had more than just code in it),
the bundle was sold as an "Operating System Processor".

Of course, this is the 1983 datasheet, so things may have been different in
'79. I don't have datasheets for back then, but I would be interested to
know if it's any different.

I have a bunch of Intel, and other mfr, books and general bumph from about
that time in the office, including the Intel one which covers all their
chips... printed on near transparent paper, which makes it difficult to
xerox or photograph.:-) I'm not sure of dates but I'll take a look just to
see though I don't see it as all that important.

It was certainly not in the category
of what was called a CPU at the time. In fact Intel called it a
"microprocessor" because it was targeted at the err, microprocessor
market which at the time, just prior to the PC, did not include
general purpose computers.

If you want to split hairs on definitions, then you'll have to define what a
"general purpose computer" is. Were the computer kits made out of 4004's and
8008's general purpose computers? What about the Altair? It had a BASIC
interpreter. Or the Apple 1? You could hook that up to your TV. Failing
that, I'm pretty sure most people would agree that the Apple II was a
general purpose computer that used a microprocessor, and that came out
before the 8086 (mid 1977 vs early 1978 from taking a sample of dates out
there).

I have to admit that, at the time, I thought of them as toys... with some
future possible potential when/if development of address-size/register
width got to be useful. By then I'd had a belly-full of 16-bit computers
and trying to cram (my idea of) real software into the 16-bit
minicomputers.

FWIW, I always took the the division to be between microcontrollers and
(micro)processors. The former being targetted at the embedded/control
systems market (and requiring very little externally, often having ram and
PROM on-chip) and the latter being for general purpose computers.

Most of what was built on STB Bus, S100 Bus, VersaBus, Multibus, VME-Bus
etc. were not in my view, general purpose computers - all such "systems"
though, had microprocessors in them... same for all the various devices
like laser printers with 80186s and 68000s. Then again, from my POV the
8088/8086 instruction set has always been saddled with its origins as a
tarted up micro-controller.:-)

[...]
Basically they called the 8088 an 8-bit *microprocessor* because the
buyers were buying based on bus width for mating with things like the
STB Bus, S-100 Bus etc. and proprietary variations thereof. In CPU
terms the 8088
is still a 16-bit processor by any broad definition and of course
runs the exact same software as the 8086. In no way can it be
considered an 8-bit computer, CPU or whatever other term you wish to
use.

I'm with you here, in that I would call it a 16-bit processor/CPU/whatever.
However, what was originally claimed was that Intel, at the time, called it
a 8-bit CPU. There's no explicit reference to it being a "8-bit CPU" but it
is called an "8-bit processor" and an "8-bit microprocessor", as well as
being called a CPU. There is no reference to it being a 16-bit
CPU/processor/whatever, the closest being the line "16-bit Internal
Architecture" and the line

"The processor has attributes of both 8- and 16-bit microprocessors. It is
directly compatible with iAPX 86/10 software and 8080/8085 hardware and
peripherals."

Again, I believe that what they called it, i.e. "8-bit micproprocessor",
was due to the people who were potential buyers... where the width of the
bus was more important than the internal processor architecture.

Incidentally, while the 8086 and 80186 are "16-bit microprocessors" and the
8088 and 80188 "8-bit microprocessors", there is no such reference for the
80286. The 286 is just a "microprocessor"

Not sure of the importance of that... other than the fact that by that
time, the idea of building a useful business device around a microprocessor
had taken hold and had a future. By that time, Motorola and National Semi
were also making loud noises about their 68010 and 16032 32-bit
microprocessors - no point in putting the horrible truth up in bold
letters.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:58:54 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

Since we're talking about what Intel called the CPU, I think the 1983 Intel
"Microprocessor and Processor and Peripheral Handbook" ought to be a fairly
authoritive reference. In there it's got the "iAPX 86/10 16-Bit HMOS
Microprocessor" and the "iAPX 88/10 8-bit HMOS Microprocessor" (differing
capitalisation of "bit" not a typo by me). Similarly listed are the 80186
and 80188.

But did they?... call it a CPU? It was certainly not in the category of
what was called a CPU at the time. In fact Intel called it a
"microprocessor" because it was targeted at the err, microprocessor market

All the rest of BS cut.

WTF is wrong with you. It becomes a CPU only when put in a system.
CPU=Central Processing Unit. In this case the CPU is a microprocessor. So
try something else or just admit the facts that all you people that siad
it wasn't an 8bit cpu were wrong. Ignorance is bliss. Stupidity is just
stupidty.

Uhh, it was put in a hell of a lot more devices than what we call, or
called, a computer system... and was targeted heavily at the buyers from
companies who had lots of $$ invested in proprietary 8-bit technology
interfacing devices and associated buses... therefo "8-bit
microprocessor".

You want to call it an 8-bit CPU, processor or whatever and yet it was 100%
compatible with 8086 software and ran all the 16-bit software just fine.
Nope it was *not* an 8-bit CPU. Learn to read the docs, their timeframe at
writing which preceded any established notion of a business PC, and apply
them to the relevant marketing profile(s).

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:27:52 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:


I have a bunch of Intel, and other mfr, books and general bumph from about
that time in the office, including the Intel one which covers all their
chips... printed on near transparent paper, which makes it difficult to
xerox or photograph.:-) I'm not sure of dates but I'll take a look just to
see though I don't see it as all that important.

You might find it easier to image if a black sheet of paper
is placed behind the page, then contrast raised in photo
editing SW if needed.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:27:53 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:58:54 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

Since we're talking about what Intel called the CPU, I think the 1983 Intel
"Microprocessor and Processor and Peripheral Handbook" ought to be a fairly
authoritive reference. In there it's got the "iAPX 86/10 16-Bit HMOS
Microprocessor" and the "iAPX 88/10 8-bit HMOS Microprocessor" (differing
capitalisation of "bit" not a typo by me). Similarly listed are the 80186
and 80188.

But did they?... call it a CPU? It was certainly not in the category of
what was called a CPU at the time. In fact Intel called it a
"microprocessor" because it was targeted at the err, microprocessor market

All the rest of BS cut.

WTF is wrong with you. It becomes a CPU only when put in a system.
CPU=Central Processing Unit. In this case the CPU is a microprocessor. So
try something else or just admit the facts that all you people that siad
it wasn't an 8bit cpu were wrong. Ignorance is bliss. Stupidity is just
stupidty.

Uhh, it was put in a hell of a lot more devices than what we call, or
called, a computer system...

I don't give a **** if you shoved it up a camels ass, it was defined as an
8bit microprocessor, and when then placed in the system as the CPU, it was
then an 8bit CPU. Are you that fricking stupid or do you just like to
argue. And that's more of statement of disgust than a question.

You want to call it an 8-bit CPU, processor or whatever and yet it was
100% compatible with 8086 software and ran all the 16-bit software just
fine. Nope it was *not* an 8-bit CPU. Learn to read the docs, their
timeframe at writing which preceded any established notion of a business
PC, and apply them to the relevant marketing profile(s).

No. I don't want to call it anything. Youv'e been shown that Intel
defined it as 8 bit device. And in the context of the discussion, the
device is being used as a CPU, so that makes it an 8 bit CPU back then.
That's all I ever stated. You've been shown the proof, yet you chose to
disregard it and argue otherwsie still. And you're telling me to learn how
to read? You are a stupid arrogant egotist that can't admit you are wrong.
You are a danger to yourself and society as a whole. And you can call it
any damn thing you want too.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:27:52 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

Not sure of the importance of that... other than the fact that by that
time, the idea of building a useful business device around a microprocessor
had taken hold and had a future. By that time, Motorola and National Semi
were also making loud noises about their 68010 and 16032 32-bit
microprocessors - no point in putting the horrible truth up in bold
letters.:-)

Here we go agian. The 68010 was also defined as a 16bit CPU just like the
68000. The first defined as a 32bit by Motorola in the 68000 family was
the 68020.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

gaffo wrote:

good point Dave..............sadly I still must follow what I feel is my
duty, even if it offends non-US folks.

peace.


I don't feel offended.

My plea to the U.S.: Please get rid of the Bush warriors on Nov 3rd.
America and the globe deserve better.


Andreas




--
Rechtsanwalt Andreas Schwartmann
Schwerinstr. 37-39, 50733 Köln
Tel.: 0221-7787630 | Fax: 0221-7787629
www.rechtsanwalt.andreas-schwartmann.de

(Scott Alfter) wrote:

Long-term observation has shown that the modern left is
chock-full of hypocrites who say one thing and then do another...witness
their bleats for tolerance while they're intolerant of dissenting thought as
an example, or the Democrats' indignation at imagined slights against their
patriotism while calling Republicans unpatriotic and un-American.
Clear-thinking people find this hypocrisy disgusting.

No, raise your OTHER right hand. You got it exactly backwards.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:26:00 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

It's obvious that you've never seen data sheets from the 1979 time period.
I've got a complete set. and it's called a 16bit cpu by Motorola

I clearly remember Motorola (correctly) calling the 68000 a 32-bit
processor.

keith wrote:
The 8088 was always defined as a 16 bit processor. It
was marketed as a cost-reduced (at the system level) 8086.

I clearly remember Intel (incorrectly) referring to the 8088 as an
8-bit processor, and comparing it to "other" 8-bit processors in their
marketing literature.

Wes Newell wrote:

No. I don't want to call it anything. Youv'e been shown that Intel
defined it as 8 bit device. And in the context of the discussion, the
device is being used as a CPU, so that makes it an 8 bit CPU back then.

I don't care what Intel called it. It was a 16-bit CPU. The 68000
may be debatable whether it's 16 or 32, but the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU,
with a restricted-width data bus. End of story.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:58:21 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:

No. I don't want to call it anything. Youv'e been shown that Intel
defined it as 8 bit device. And in the context of the discussion, the
device is being used as a CPU, so that makes it an 8 bit CPU back then.

I don't care what Intel called it. It was a 16-bit CPU. The 68000
may be debatable whether it's 16 or 32, but the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU,
with a restricted-width data bus. End of story.

You should have said end of fairy tale. It's pure fact that the 8088 was
originally defined by Intel as an 8bit device. It's also pure fact that
the 68000 was originally defined as a 16bit CPU. Current data sheets show
them defined by the register sizes, 16 and 32 bit respectively. What I
don't understand is that you claim the 8088, an 8/16 bit device is a 16
bit cpu, yet it is debatable that the 68000 was, when it's structure is
16/32 bit. Is this really John Kerry? :-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm