3 ms·
You have a typo of "486DX" in your first line introducing the 486SX. >> Some commentators speculated that the 486DX vs 486SX marketing thing allowed Intel to s
by kayfox 3y ago
You have a typo of "486DX" in your first line introducing the 486SX.
>> Some commentators speculated that the 486DX vs 486SX marketing thing allowed Intel to sell defective 486s in which the FPU didn't work but if it did that was a tiny tiny number: a rounding error.
It was a significant amount of chips at the time, since the 486 was still new and the FPU is somewhere around 30% of the die, it would come out to a lot of them. They was also an overlap of the DX die with FPU disabled and SX die both being shipped at the same time.
- lproven 3y ago> You have a typo of "486DX" in your first line introducing the 486SX. You're right -- but I can't fix it now. :-( > It was a significant amount of chips at the time, since the 486 was still new It might have been. If you have any pointers to numbers, I'm curious. But when the 80486 first appeared, it was just the "486". The DX/SX thing came later, and the early 486SX units definitely had a full FPU on the die -- I remember X-rays, de-capping, and die-shots. I just checked and the gap was longer than I realised: (80386, 1985) (386SX, 1988) i486, 1989 (Windows 3.0, 1990) 486SX, 1991 486DX2, March 1992 (Windows 3.1, April 1992) Just a year between the 486SX and the DX2, which rendered it largely irrelevant -- then, the budget option became a non-clock-doubled model, and the clock-doubled one became the premium product.