This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It says the i386DX was produced with about 104mm^2 die size in the CHMOS III process and later with about 39mm^2 die size in the CHMOS IV process. For the i386SX it says it was produced with the CHMOS IV process and with about 104mm^2 die size. Are you sure the die size and/or process for the SX variant is correct? It doesn't seem to add up for me, at least.
178.24.193.37 ( talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how keeping the flat memory model was such a significant design choice. Upon further research, it seems that all preceding Intel chips also featured a flat memory model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.163.78 ( talk) 02:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen sources that say the chip was released in 1985. [ [1]]. Was it really 1986 or was it 1985? Timbatron 21:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
(Verifable/Validation Source) I was the Responsible Individual (RI) Research and Development Technician working on the 80386 at Intel Corporation's R&D Facility, adjacent to the Production Facility in Livermore, CA. The run yielded approximately 8 die per wafer at E-test for the first time in late 1985. With new proprietary information, the product was immediately launched into full, mass production as the world was waiting for this chip to be born--and so it was, in the third quarter of 1986. kathywinchell@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchell4 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Intel decided against producing the chip before then, as the cost of production would have been uneconomic." What is the basis for this assertion? The chip wasn't designed until Oct '85, this implies otherwise. -- Gnetwerker 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is significant that the first major customer was Compaq, then not a large company, rather than IBM. While I "know" this (from being at Intel), I don't have a source. Anyone? (P.s. -- The Compaq page says all of these things without attribution.) -- Gnetwerker 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what SX and DX stand for? I heard once "Single eXecution" and "Double eXecution". But I've never seen that confirmed. warpozio 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
SX and DX means very different things, depending on processor's generation. 80386SX internally is identically the same as DX (fully 32-bit), but it has 16-bit data bus, which slowed down it's memory access performance comparing to 80386DX, which had 32-bit data bus. In this matter it's similar to Motorola 68000, which is also a 32-bit processor internally (32 bit addressation, registers, arithmetic), but also has 16-bit data bus. It was done to minimize the costs of motherboards - 68000 was out much earlier than 80386SX. Also, first 80386 of course has 32-bit data bus, thus is was the "DX", yet it wasn't called so, because 80386SX and separation between SX and DX was introduced later.
In the 486 generation processors SX versions doesn't have built-in FPU. Of course 80386 never has integrated FPU, thus 486SX at the same frequency is something like faster 80386DX (faster due architectural advances - pipelined ALU and so on). Yet, AMD has managed to produce 80386DX working at quite high frequencies (40Mhz), thus is often was faster than 486SX with lower freqs like 25Mhz.
SX and DX are mostly marketing features, which are introduced to separate lower and upper segments of market. In such meaning they are something like "Celeron" and "Pentium" trademarks used todays. Though different generations of processors use different ways to "cripple" the performance in low-cost models.
SX - Single Word External (16-bit data bus) DX - Double Word External (32-bit data bus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.113 ( talk) 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/80386 170.75.140.124 ( talk) 12:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This needs to be made into a disambig because there's a very important folder called I386 with the Windows installation files (called a "Windows CD-ROM image") on most modern PCs:
http://ask-leo.com/i_dont_have_an_installation_cd_for_windows_xp_what_if_i_need_one.html http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/i386
(1) The Intel 386 CPU. See 386.
(2) The name of a CD-ROM folder. Sometimes, "i386" is used as a folder name on installation or development CD-ROMs to refer to the Intel or PC platform in contrast to other platforms that may also be supported. -- Espoo ( talk) 07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Assembler manuals claims that original 80386 could work with 80287 processor - to save one's investments, or to allow intermediate price-and-perfomance level between FP-less sole 80386 and expensive 80386+80387 pair
OK, why delete that section? It's significant - the first Intel '32 bit' CPU didn't, you know, actually work and Intel ended up stamping thousands of chips '16 bit only'. Several important programs (eg Windows) checked for this. Lovingboth 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't 80386 be the fourth generation x86 processor (8086, 80186, 80286 and then 80386)? Or is there some reason why one of these should not be regarded as a generation? Even though this article is about computing, I guess the 8086 can't be counted as zeroth generation... 213.216.199.30 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The summary box states that the 386 is a 68 pin CPU. I am fairly sure (looking at a summary from Intel docs) that the 386 DX was offered in a 132 pin PGA or PQFP format. The coprocessor, the 387, was 68 pin. Also, the 386 SX may have been offered in a 68 pin format since it had only a 16 bit external data bus.
Should it be noted that this chip was still used in RIM Blackberries until recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.161.165 ( talk) 14:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is needed for "i386". A search querie for this term directs to this page (the 80386 page). The term "i386" also refers to a directory used in Windows operating systems that contains files used to create an installation disk. The directory is not related to the processor used on the host machine. WWriter ( talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Intel i386 SL processon <--- Should end in R, but being a newbie I can't figure out how to get at it... It's the text for the image of the SL processor I believe.
fixed. - 75.69.164.125 ( talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This page says that the i386EX was used in the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 (but didn't work until 1993 when the corrective mirrors were installed), but the i386EX did not come out until 1994. How can this be? Was the i386EX added on a servicing mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.184.128 ( talk) 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm almost certain you could get 40Mhz 386 desktops - I even have gaming magazines that report it as the minimum spec for some older or less demanding titles (e.g. "40mhz 386, 25mhz 486SX or 386+FPU, or any 486DX or Pentium"). However this speed is only reported as available for embedded parts in the article. Was it an official (and possibly premium at first but eventually cheap and long-running) Intel (or AMD) 5v CPU, or was some manufacturer leveraging embedded processors in their budget-spec computers - in sufficient quantity for them to be worth mentioning instead of e.g. "well, it *will* run on a 33mhz 386, but it'll be choppy" or whatever? 193.63.174.11 ( talk) 11:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I had a machine from data general that came with an intel 386 @ 40MHz. I wish I still had it to provide CPU suffixes, but I know it came stock that way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.63.79.245 (
talk)
13:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Some 64bit CPUs have removed support for running 16 bit software. One example is the AMD LE1620. (One of which is in the box I'm using right now.) Try to run any old DOS program on Windows XP using this CPU and you get an NTVDM error. The CPU doesn't support the x86 virtual machine, might even be incapable of booting plain old DOS. Bizzybody ( talk) 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There should be some discussion about the B1 stepping bugs that made opcodes fail to work if followed by specific other opcodes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.243.199.239 (
talk)
16:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
ALL 386 CPUs have the so called POPAD BUG. Description can be found on German wikipedia. English information is here:
http://computer-programming-forum.com/46-asm/c4c6d67250609049.htm --
62.48.72.147 (
talk)
09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Could someone provide the assembled code for the Example Code listed? Having the actual binary (hex) code allows for code size comparisons with other processors. — Loadmaster ( talk) 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 08:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Intel 80486 → – The official product name, etched onto every chip, is i486. WP:COMMONNAME is either i486 or Intel 486. The digit string 80486 is part of the model ID numbers, but very infrequently used to refer to the CPU family. The references cited in the article refer to the chip as either 486 or i486. Intel website nowadays calls it Intel486™; their white papers still include both i486 and Intel486 in the bulk list of their trademarks.
The article had a few undiscussed moves in the past: first to Intel i486, then to Intel 80486 (microarchitecture), then to Intel i486 (Processor), but so far never to i486, which would be in line with other CPUs having proper names: e.g. Athlon is not named AMD Athlon or AMD Athlon (Processor) or AMD K7 after the model ID number. Crash48 ( talk) 18:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at [ change], I cannot find any reference to this book online except for this wikipedia article and a forum post. I started looking into this because I didn't understand what "This" was in text: "This was under development on this process". Should we remove this text? It adds information about the name P3.
Vermiceli ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The current text states that "Over the years, successively newer implementations of the same architecture have become several hundreds of times faster than the original 80386 (and thousands of times faster than the 8086)." My fairly slow and old CPU is several hundreds of thousands times faster than the original 8086, if we're only looking at one core (of which it has multiple). This statement is so outdated it could be considered misleading. 89.239.195.102 ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It says the i386DX was produced with about 104mm^2 die size in the CHMOS III process and later with about 39mm^2 die size in the CHMOS IV process. For the i386SX it says it was produced with the CHMOS IV process and with about 104mm^2 die size. Are you sure the die size and/or process for the SX variant is correct? It doesn't seem to add up for me, at least.
178.24.193.37 ( talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how keeping the flat memory model was such a significant design choice. Upon further research, it seems that all preceding Intel chips also featured a flat memory model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.163.78 ( talk) 02:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen sources that say the chip was released in 1985. [ [1]]. Was it really 1986 or was it 1985? Timbatron 21:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
(Verifable/Validation Source) I was the Responsible Individual (RI) Research and Development Technician working on the 80386 at Intel Corporation's R&D Facility, adjacent to the Production Facility in Livermore, CA. The run yielded approximately 8 die per wafer at E-test for the first time in late 1985. With new proprietary information, the product was immediately launched into full, mass production as the world was waiting for this chip to be born--and so it was, in the third quarter of 1986. kathywinchell@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchell4 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Intel decided against producing the chip before then, as the cost of production would have been uneconomic." What is the basis for this assertion? The chip wasn't designed until Oct '85, this implies otherwise. -- Gnetwerker 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is significant that the first major customer was Compaq, then not a large company, rather than IBM. While I "know" this (from being at Intel), I don't have a source. Anyone? (P.s. -- The Compaq page says all of these things without attribution.) -- Gnetwerker 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what SX and DX stand for? I heard once "Single eXecution" and "Double eXecution". But I've never seen that confirmed. warpozio 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
SX and DX means very different things, depending on processor's generation. 80386SX internally is identically the same as DX (fully 32-bit), but it has 16-bit data bus, which slowed down it's memory access performance comparing to 80386DX, which had 32-bit data bus. In this matter it's similar to Motorola 68000, which is also a 32-bit processor internally (32 bit addressation, registers, arithmetic), but also has 16-bit data bus. It was done to minimize the costs of motherboards - 68000 was out much earlier than 80386SX. Also, first 80386 of course has 32-bit data bus, thus is was the "DX", yet it wasn't called so, because 80386SX and separation between SX and DX was introduced later.
In the 486 generation processors SX versions doesn't have built-in FPU. Of course 80386 never has integrated FPU, thus 486SX at the same frequency is something like faster 80386DX (faster due architectural advances - pipelined ALU and so on). Yet, AMD has managed to produce 80386DX working at quite high frequencies (40Mhz), thus is often was faster than 486SX with lower freqs like 25Mhz.
SX and DX are mostly marketing features, which are introduced to separate lower and upper segments of market. In such meaning they are something like "Celeron" and "Pentium" trademarks used todays. Though different generations of processors use different ways to "cripple" the performance in low-cost models.
SX - Single Word External (16-bit data bus) DX - Double Word External (32-bit data bus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.113 ( talk) 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/80386 170.75.140.124 ( talk) 12:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This needs to be made into a disambig because there's a very important folder called I386 with the Windows installation files (called a "Windows CD-ROM image") on most modern PCs:
http://ask-leo.com/i_dont_have_an_installation_cd_for_windows_xp_what_if_i_need_one.html http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/i386
(1) The Intel 386 CPU. See 386.
(2) The name of a CD-ROM folder. Sometimes, "i386" is used as a folder name on installation or development CD-ROMs to refer to the Intel or PC platform in contrast to other platforms that may also be supported. -- Espoo ( talk) 07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Assembler manuals claims that original 80386 could work with 80287 processor - to save one's investments, or to allow intermediate price-and-perfomance level between FP-less sole 80386 and expensive 80386+80387 pair
OK, why delete that section? It's significant - the first Intel '32 bit' CPU didn't, you know, actually work and Intel ended up stamping thousands of chips '16 bit only'. Several important programs (eg Windows) checked for this. Lovingboth 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't 80386 be the fourth generation x86 processor (8086, 80186, 80286 and then 80386)? Or is there some reason why one of these should not be regarded as a generation? Even though this article is about computing, I guess the 8086 can't be counted as zeroth generation... 213.216.199.30 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The summary box states that the 386 is a 68 pin CPU. I am fairly sure (looking at a summary from Intel docs) that the 386 DX was offered in a 132 pin PGA or PQFP format. The coprocessor, the 387, was 68 pin. Also, the 386 SX may have been offered in a 68 pin format since it had only a 16 bit external data bus.
Should it be noted that this chip was still used in RIM Blackberries until recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.161.165 ( talk) 14:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is needed for "i386". A search querie for this term directs to this page (the 80386 page). The term "i386" also refers to a directory used in Windows operating systems that contains files used to create an installation disk. The directory is not related to the processor used on the host machine. WWriter ( talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Intel i386 SL processon <--- Should end in R, but being a newbie I can't figure out how to get at it... It's the text for the image of the SL processor I believe.
fixed. - 75.69.164.125 ( talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This page says that the i386EX was used in the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 (but didn't work until 1993 when the corrective mirrors were installed), but the i386EX did not come out until 1994. How can this be? Was the i386EX added on a servicing mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.184.128 ( talk) 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm almost certain you could get 40Mhz 386 desktops - I even have gaming magazines that report it as the minimum spec for some older or less demanding titles (e.g. "40mhz 386, 25mhz 486SX or 386+FPU, or any 486DX or Pentium"). However this speed is only reported as available for embedded parts in the article. Was it an official (and possibly premium at first but eventually cheap and long-running) Intel (or AMD) 5v CPU, or was some manufacturer leveraging embedded processors in their budget-spec computers - in sufficient quantity for them to be worth mentioning instead of e.g. "well, it *will* run on a 33mhz 386, but it'll be choppy" or whatever? 193.63.174.11 ( talk) 11:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I had a machine from data general that came with an intel 386 @ 40MHz. I wish I still had it to provide CPU suffixes, but I know it came stock that way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.63.79.245 (
talk)
13:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Some 64bit CPUs have removed support for running 16 bit software. One example is the AMD LE1620. (One of which is in the box I'm using right now.) Try to run any old DOS program on Windows XP using this CPU and you get an NTVDM error. The CPU doesn't support the x86 virtual machine, might even be incapable of booting plain old DOS. Bizzybody ( talk) 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There should be some discussion about the B1 stepping bugs that made opcodes fail to work if followed by specific other opcodes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.243.199.239 (
talk)
16:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
ALL 386 CPUs have the so called POPAD BUG. Description can be found on German wikipedia. English information is here:
http://computer-programming-forum.com/46-asm/c4c6d67250609049.htm --
62.48.72.147 (
talk)
09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Could someone provide the assembled code for the Example Code listed? Having the actual binary (hex) code allows for code size comparisons with other processors. — Loadmaster ( talk) 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 08:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Intel 80486 → – The official product name, etched onto every chip, is i486. WP:COMMONNAME is either i486 or Intel 486. The digit string 80486 is part of the model ID numbers, but very infrequently used to refer to the CPU family. The references cited in the article refer to the chip as either 486 or i486. Intel website nowadays calls it Intel486™; their white papers still include both i486 and Intel486 in the bulk list of their trademarks.
The article had a few undiscussed moves in the past: first to Intel i486, then to Intel 80486 (microarchitecture), then to Intel i486 (Processor), but so far never to i486, which would be in line with other CPUs having proper names: e.g. Athlon is not named AMD Athlon or AMD Athlon (Processor) or AMD K7 after the model ID number. Crash48 ( talk) 18:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at [ change], I cannot find any reference to this book online except for this wikipedia article and a forum post. I started looking into this because I didn't understand what "This" was in text: "This was under development on this process". Should we remove this text? It adds information about the name P3.
Vermiceli ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The current text states that "Over the years, successively newer implementations of the same architecture have become several hundreds of times faster than the original 80386 (and thousands of times faster than the 8086)." My fairly slow and old CPU is several hundreds of thousands times faster than the original 8086, if we're only looking at one core (of which it has multiple). This statement is so outdated it could be considered misleading. 89.239.195.102 ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)