Should I go Athlon64 or Barton?

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:27:40 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:16:59 +0200, "jack" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
: On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:58:07 +0200, "jack" wrote:
:
:: gaffo wrote:
:: snip all
::
:: Dude, your sig is a bummer, man. As much as I agree with your
:: political views and frustrations entirely, your sig as it stands
:: simply has no place on Usenet...it's very unpolite (meaning WAY
too
:: large).
:
: What's new - another left-wing windbag!

Well, Vswm No. 1 steps up to the podium...

Thank you... thank you.... thank you. I'm honored to have such an award
from the likes of you.

Ah, come on man! Can't I get in here too?

:: Also, at least in this NG (.chips) your political
:: statements are falling more or less on deaf ears as this group is
:: populated with a large number of SWM (stupid white men) and even
a
:: few VSWM (V = very). Get my drift?
:
: One of those days, Jack (gaffo I dunno), you're going to waken up
to
: discover that all your liberal politicians are really just
: right-wingers pretending to err, take care of you... as they umm,
: liberally dip their
: hand in your pocket.:-) C.F. New Jersey McGreevey - another
: corrupt little "liberal" **** gets caught err, dipping.guffaw

FOAD you right-wing POS. In fact, why don't you stick your 9mm and
your bible right up your ass and do us ALL a favor, asshole.

Hey listen for the sound of jack-boots really carefully Jack. That car you
drive is a certain target for confiscation when your party of choice gets
its ducks in a row and cons everyone into getting it into power. But hey,
didn't they just get elected where you live? Oh dear, I wonder how long
it'll take??.... better keep your eye out for EC directives on the
subject... probably how they'll start. It certainly doesn't have a
"pedestrian friendly" front end either... a double whammy that, on top of
being such a conspicuous consumer of "valuable world resources".:-( Of
course before then, there's always the chance that some frenzied environut
will take matters into his own righteous hands - probably better to hide
it.

The ones with the jack-boots are the leftists. Look at campus speech
these days. Agree or leave!

Yer a bloody living paradox my son.

Oh BTW, I don't own any 9mm or any other weapon and I'm a a born-again
pagan - not a bible in the house... sorry about that.

I do. A .357 and a couple of .22s. I'm looking at a .45, but can't
"afford" it at this time. Besides I may move to a state where the
jack-boots like Jack only want the criminals armed.

Plonk along...

--
Keith

keith wrote:
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
[...]
It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in
order not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus
would have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory
configuration.

I actually thought it was more an issue of lack of support chips. IBM
couldn't build, in the 1-year time period they were given, an 8086 based
machine because the support chips for the 8086 simply weren't there. The
8088, sharing a very similar (possibly identical?) bus design to previous
8-bit CPUs, could use existing (mass-produced and relatively cheap) support
chips without any issues.

Of course, once the 8086-based clones came out, the IBM PC started getting
it's ass handed to it on a plate by them. Fortunately (from IBM's point of
view), it didn't matter too much because they weren't 100% compatible.

Remember, memory was *expensive*. ...as was SSI/MSI
TTL and packaging.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:36:10 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:29:44 -0400, keith wrote:

Second, the 8088 is by any reasonable definition a "real" 16-bit
processor. It has *exactly* the same architecture as the 8086, so if you
consider the 8086 a "real" 16b processor, then you must also admit that
the 8088 is.

No one cares how you define, just as no one cares how I define, but the
fact is that Intel itself defined it as an 8 bit CPU when it first came
out. I had this same arguement a couple of years ago. Someone with a
scanner finally proved me right. I'm still willing to bet though.:-)

Ind I say you're wrong! Intel defined the 8088 as a 16b processor. It
was sold as a cheapie, because it had an 8b bus.

It was more than a few months before the 8086 clones started. Q had
their clone out by summer though.

I consider 3-6 to be a few. Now I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure
8086 clones showed up within that time period. And if it were 8 months,
so what.

Try 10-12. I'm not sure the original Q's had an 80886 either. ...don't
remember. The performance difference wasn't staggering in any case.

--
Keith

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

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:33:28 -0400, keith wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:53:53 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

Me too, but the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus. And at the time, cpu's
were rated rated by the data bus width.

Nonsense. At the time bitness was a measure of the accumulator width.

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 and
Signetics (second source).

Oh, good christ! I was there. I worked on the IBM side of the Intel/IBM
deal at the time. No, I wasn't in ESD, rather in the technical buying
arm of IBM (qualifying and testing Intel products). I remember the issues
*very* well. Where were you? Dribbling down your mommy's leg? (you asked
for it)

The data bus had no bearing on it. Bus width is an implementation
detail.

So tell me, just how old were you in '79? Were you even born yet? Did
you know what a microprocessor was at the time?

Oh, wow! In '79 I was designing stuff (power controls at that time) that
went into the IBM mainframes (3090s, to be exact). I left there in '80 to
work on the Intel microprocessors. You?

DO you consider the Pentium a 64bit processor?

Times have changed. I think i made that clear by refering to the time
period.

I note that you didnt' answer the question. The quetion of "bitness" has
always been murky, but *never* has been an issue of something stupid
like the external bus width. That's a silly implementation detail, as
I've said.

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. Of course marketeers can say anything. Engineers don't listen
too much to marketeering. ...well sometimes I've had to listen to too
much, but..,


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

At least you're half right here.

It's far better than the 000 you're batting.

Today it's defined as a 16bit CPU.

Did you even read this?

Certainly. Do you understand *ANYTHING*?

Now if you would like to make a small wager of say $100,000.00. Let me
know. Bring the cash and I'll show you the data sheets. I like easy
money.:-)

What a ****ing maroon!

--
Keith

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:10:25 +1200, Michael Brown wrote:

keith wrote:
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
[...]
It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in
order not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus
would have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory
configuration.

I actually thought it was more an issue of lack of support chips.

Support chips? THe 5150 was all SSI/MSI, other than the processor and
memory. The entire thing was built from off-the-shelf 74xxx parts.

IBM couldn't build, in the 1-year time period they were given, an 8086 based
machine because the support chips for the 8086 simply weren't there.

Nope. THere was no such thing as "support chips" at the time (other than
the standard parallal I/O which would be common for either processor).
Indeed Intel came out with the 8086 *before* the 8088.

The 8088, sharing a very similar (possibly identical?) bus design to
previous 8-bit CPUs, could use existing (mass-produced and relatively
cheap) support chips without any issues.

Nope. The 8085 was quite different. In any case, the 5150 was an all TTL
bus design. The schematics were published in the Tech Reference. Anyone
could build one. IBM's mistake was to assume that no one could duplicate
the BIOS (even though the source was published).

Of course, once the 8086-based clones came out, the IBM PC started
getting it's ass handed to it on a plate by them. Fortunately (from
IBM's point of view), it didn't matter too much because they weren't
100% compatible.

Actually, they were. As time went on,, some were even more "compatable"
than even IBM's.

--
Keith

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:10:25 +1200, Michael Brown wrote:

keith wrote:
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
[...]
It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in
order not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus
would have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory
configuration.

I actually thought it was more an issue of lack of support chips.

Support chips? THe 5150 was all SSI/MSI, other than the processor and
memory. The entire thing was built from off-the-shelf 74xxx parts.

IBM couldn't build, in the 1-year time period they were given, an 8086
based
machine because the support chips for the 8086 simply weren't there.

Nope. THere was no such thing as "support chips" at the time (other than
the standard parallal I/O which would be common for either processor).
Indeed Intel came out with the 8086 *before* the 8088.

The 8088, sharing a very similar (possibly identical?) bus design to
previous 8-bit CPUs, could use existing (mass-produced and relatively
cheap) support chips without any issues.

Nope. The 8085 was quite different. In any case, the 5150 was an all TTL
bus design. The schematics were published in the Tech Reference. Anyone
could build one. IBM's mistake was to assume that no one could duplicate
the BIOS (even though the source was published).

Of course, once the 8086-based clones came out, the IBM PC started
getting it's ass handed to it on a plate by them. Fortunately (from
IBM's point of view), it didn't matter too much because they weren't
100% compatible.

Actually, they were. As time went on,, some were even more "compatable"
than even IBM's.

After the AT the Compaq 386/25 became the development standard at MS.

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.

I can't make any photos of it at the moment (digital camera acting funny)
but I'm pretty sure I've posted them before when this argument came up a
year or so ago. I may still have them on my computer somewhere.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

keith wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:10:25 +1200, Michael Brown wrote:

keith wrote:
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
[...]
It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in
order not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus
would have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory
configuration.

I actually thought it was more an issue of lack of support chips.

Support chips? THe 5150 was all SSI/MSI, other than the processor and
memory. The entire thing was built from off-the-shelf 74xxx parts.

I'm not sure what the 5150 is, but if it's the original IBM PC that
contradicts a lot of the information I've seen. For example in programming
reference books (such as The Undocumented PC for example), there are a large
number of references to support chips used in the original PC: 8237 for DMA,
8259 for interupts, 8254 for timers, 8250 UART. Also, given that the PC had
functionality like DMA and floppy disks, and that there were 8-bit Intel
chips to handle this (but no 16-bit equavalents), it would have been
pointless for the IBM team to duplicate the functionality with 74xxx chips.
There were presumably 16-bit chips to do these duties for other
microprocessors, but I don't know if they were compatible with the
8086/8088.

IBM couldn't build, in the 1-year time period they were given, an
8086 based machine because the support chips for the 8086 simply
weren't there.

Nope. THere was no such thing as "support chips" at the time (other
than the standard parallal I/O which would be common for either
processor).

The page at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/primitiveasm/history_1.html
has some information on the available chips for 8-bit microprocessors. I'm
pretty sure the 8259 and 8257 at least were around prior to the 8086/8088. A
number of these chips would drop into a 16-bit bus system without any
issues, but the DMA controller is a good example of where some extra glue
would be required to make everything work. Going with an 8-bit bus means you
don't have to worry about any of this glue.

Indeed Intel came out with the 8086 *before* the 8088.

But the 16-bit support chips were not available at release, whereas the 8088
was "directly compatible with 8080/8085 hardware and peripherals" (1983
Intel "Microprocessor and Peripheral Handbook"). The 8086 had no such
hardware compatibility, and even in 1983 when the afore mentioned book was
published, there was no sign of a 16-bit DMA controller.

The 8088, sharing a very similar (possibly identical?) bus design to
previous 8-bit CPUs, could use existing (mass-produced and relatively
cheap) support chips without any issues.

Nope. The 8085 was quite different.

Not according to the Intel docs (see above).

[...]
Of course, once the 8086-based clones came out, the IBM PC started
getting it's ass handed to it on a plate by them. Fortunately (from
IBM's point of view), it didn't matter too much because they weren't
100% compatible.

Actually, they were.

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM%20PC%20compatible
The first 100% compatible PC's didn't arrive until '82, and there were a
large number of clones in the period between the release of the PC and '82.
I don't beleive any of the 100% compatible computers used the 8086, for the
simple reason that to use IBM compatible cards, you had to be using an 8-bit
bus. I'm willing to be proved wrong though (and indeed would be quite
interested to see how anyone managed to pull it off).

As time went on,, some were even more
"compatable" than even IBM's.

Ah yes, the lovely PCjr ...

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:20 -0400, keith wrote:

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 and
Signetics (second source).

Oh, good christ! I was there. I worked on the IBM side of the Intel/IBM
deal at the time. No, I wasn't in ESD, rather in the technical buying
arm of IBM (qualifying and testing Intel products). I remember the issues
*very* well. Where were you? Dribbling down your mommy's leg? (you asked
for it)

Wish I was. Better watch out, you may be talking to your Daddy. At the
time I was an engineer at Rockwell and did a lot of traveling.

The data bus had no bearing on it. Bus width is an implementation
detail.

So tell me, just how old were you in '79? Were you even born yet? Did
you know what a microprocessor was at the time?

Oh, wow! In '79 I was designing stuff (power controls at that time) that
went into the IBM mainframes (3090s, to be exact). I left there in '80 to
work on the Intel microprocessors. You?

As I stated, I was at rockwell. I left them in 80 or 81 and started
working for myself designing hardware and software for the 6502 and (guess
what) the 68000.:-)

DO you consider the Pentium a 64bit processor?

Times have changed. I think i made that clear by refering to the time
period.

I note that you didnt' answer the question.

Becuase it's not relevant to the original conversation and I'm not going
to let you out of that by changing the subject. So I will not answer.

The quetion of "bitness" has always been murky, but *never* has been an
issue of something stupid like the external bus width. That's a silly
implementation detail, as I've said.

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. Of course marketeers can say anything. Engineers don't listen
too much to marketeering. ...well sometimes I've had to listen to too
much, but..,

Then you should have paid more attention or have a better memory. I've
found the 68000 Data sheets for 1982. SC68000 series January 1982 and in
BIG bold letters "16 Bit Microprocessor" I can take a picture with my
camera and put it on website if you want to be publicly made a fool of.
Your choice. Let me know.


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

At least you're half right here.

It's far better than the 000 you're batting.

Today it's defined as a 16bit CPU.

Did you even read this?

Certainly. Do you understand *ANYTHING*?

Now if you would like to make a small wager of say $100,000.00. Let me
know. Bring the cash and I'll show you the data sheets. I like easy
money.:-)

What a ****ing maroon!

I see when it comes right down to it, you don't have much faith in
yourself. Good thing, because you would lose. You are a glutten for
punishment though. As old as you are I'd have thought you'd have had
enough sense to bow out gracefuly. Just goes to show that some people
never learn.

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

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*