3 ms·
I'm old enough (50) and (80)486 was the last numbered chip from Intel, in my experience. 586 never happened. The SX DX thing happened at the 386 and 486 level
by gerdesj 5y ago
I'm old enough (50) and (80)486 was the last numbered chip from Intel, in my experience. 586 never happened.
The SX DX thing happened at the 386 and 486 level. All a bit confused and boiled down to whether you got a maths co-processor or not.
Looking back it was a pretty rubbish thing. We consumers have been treated like complete twats by all CPU manufacturers for decades.
- 300bps 5y agoConfusing, but 386SX vs 386DX had nothing to do with math coprocessors. That was only on the 486DX which had a math coprocessor vs 486SX which did not. https://dfarq.homeip.net/386sx-vs-386dx-a-misunderstood-difference/ https://dfarq.homeip.net/386sx-vs-386dx-a-misunderstood-diff...
- mobilio 5y agoJust like difference between 8086 and 8088
- tyingq 5y agoYes, they didn't market it that way, but CPUID returned '5', where a 486 returned '4', a 386 '3', etc. You'll find the 586 references in lots of Intel documentation.
- anyfoo 5y agoIt's also in the DX register (DH specifically) after reset. Earlier CPUs did not have CPUID, so that's what the BIOS most likely used. "DX holds a component identifier and revision number after RESET as Figure 10-1 illustrates. DH contains 3, which indicates an 80386 component."
- jacquesm 5y agoPenta = five, the chip was slated to become the 586 but then marketing got involved and wanted something more sexy than just another number.