3 ms·
> And at this point was all still done by hand? Sort of. From what I've gathered, at this point Intel was still doing the actual layout with rubylith, yes. B
by retrac 4y ago
> And at this point was all still done by hand?
Sort of. From what I've gathered, at this point Intel was still doing the actual layout with rubylith, yes. But in small modular sections. The sheets were then digitized and stitched into the final whole in software; there wasn't literally a giant 8086 rubylith sheet pieced together by hand, unlike just a few years before with the 8080. But the logic and circuits etc. were on paper, and there was no computer model capable of going from that to layout. The computerized mask was little more than an digital image. So a hardware patch it would have to be, unless you want to redo a lot.
Soon, designers would start creating and editing such masks directly in CAD software. But those were just giant (for the time) images, really, with specialized editors. Significant software introspection and abstraction handling them came later. I don't think the modern approach of full synthesis from a specification, really came into use until the late 80s.
- marcosdumay 4y agoI remember the Pentium was marketed as "the first computer entirely designed on CAD", well into the 90's. But I'm not sure how real was that marketing message.
- eric__cartman 4y agoThat's a good advertisement for 486s because they were baller enough to pull that off.
- rasz 4y ago286 was an RTL model hand converted module by module to transistor/gate level schematic. Afair 386 was the first Intel CPU where they fully used synthesis (work out of UC Berkeley https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/faculty/alberto-sangiovanni-vincentelli https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/faculty/alberto-sangiovanni-... co-founder of a little company called Cadence) instead of manual routing. Everything went thru logic optimizers (multi-level logic synthesis) and will most likely be unrecognizable. I found a paper on this 'Coping with the Complexity of Microprocessor Design at Intel – A CAD History' https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Avinoam-Kolodny/publication/268005718_Coping_with_the_Complexity_of_Microprocessor_Design_at_Intel_-_A_CAD_History/links/54a13aa70cf256bf8bae6779/Coping-with-the-Complexity-of-Microprocessor-Design-at-Intel-A-CAD-History.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Avinoam-Kolodny/publica... >In the 80286 design, the blocks of RTL were manually translated into the schematic design of gates and transistors which were manually entered in the schematic capture system which generated netlists of the design. >Albert proposed to support the research at U.C. Berkeley, introduce the use of multi-level logic synthesis and automatic layout for the control logic of the 386, and to set up an internal group to implement the plan, albeit Alberto pointed out that multi-level synthesis had not been released even internally to other research groups in U.C. Berkeley. >Only the I/O ring, the data and address path, the microcode array and three large PLAs were not taken through the synthesis tool chain on the 386. While there were many early skeptics, the results spoke for themselves. With layout of standard cell blocks automatically generated, the layout and circuit designers could myopically focus on the highly optimized blocks like the datapath and I/O ring where their creativity could yield much greater impact >486 design: A fully automated translation from RTL to layout (we called it RLS: RTL to Layout Synthesis) No manual schematic design (direct synthesis of gate-level netlists from RTL, without graphical schematics of the circuits) Multi-level logic synthesis for the control functions Automated gate sizing and optimization Inclusion of parasitic elements estimation Full chip layout and floor planning tools
- retrac 4y agoThanks. Fascinating!