What came after the 486?(dfarq.homeip.net)
dfarq.homeip.net
What came after the 486?
https://dfarq.homeip.net/what-came-after-486/
157 comments
Those sellers never disappeared; although I'm from not from Paraguay, the situation is familiar. These days they're selling desktops built on 10+ year old Xeons which you can buy for dirt cheap on AliExpress, installed on frankenstein motherboards from noname Chinese manufacturers which are desktop-oriented, but take server processors. The graphics card is something old like RX480, and comes from being run into the ground by years of crypto"currency" mining, then resoldered on a new board, also often developed by Chinese manufacturers you've never heard of.
Graphics cards especially are very unreliable and frequently die within a few months of purchase. But when you can buy a whole PC for the price of one modern videocard, many don't have a choice.
https://aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-intel-xeon-processors.htm...
https://aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-motherboards-xeon.html
https://aliexpress.us/w/wholesale-amd-radeon-rx-580.html
Graphics cards especially are very unreliable and frequently die within a few months of purchase. But when you can buy a whole PC for the price of one modern videocard, many don't have a choice.
https://aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-intel-xeon-processors.htm...
https://aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-motherboards-xeon.html
https://aliexpress.us/w/wholesale-amd-radeon-rx-580.html
The notion that GPU chips can be "run into the ground" by years of crypto mining or AI workloads has been debunked pretty thoroughly by now. The hardware is quite resilient, it doesn't really fail at a higher rate.
I bought a XFX RX 580 that was used for cryptomining from eBay, used it for 3 years then handed it down to my son who used it for 2 more. It still worked when he removed it. Can confirm.
I used an AMD Radeon 7770 for years, then I upgraded to a GTX 1060, the 7770 became my younger sister's GPU for her PC. It has only recently gave out, after some 14 years of service.
Likewise for the 1060, its still going strong. I upgraded to a 3060 round about the time my younger brother decided he wanted a PC so he is now using it without any issues. About 10 years use out of it, plenty more to go.
GPUs are pretty damn resilient if you aren't pissing around with them.
Likewise for the 1060, its still going strong. I upgraded to a 3060 round about the time my younger brother decided he wanted a PC so he is now using it without any issues. About 10 years use out of it, plenty more to go.
GPUs are pretty damn resilient if you aren't pissing around with them.
Also any miner worth their salt knows to undervolt to save power (=money), run cooler, last longer, and run at very close to full speed or even in some cases 100% full-speed, depending on silicon "lottery".
I think the problem is the distinction here between chips and boards. The entire GPU assembly can absolutely be worn down from continuous use, thermal pads, paste, VRMs, fans do degrade. The chip itself may be fine but it's very rare to find anyone willing to transplant a GPU from one board to another.
Well, a lot of people here would have loved to have 10-year old Xeons in their motherboards; while power hungry, I guess they would make good CPUs since they have good cache sizes. But no, there's no Xeons in our offers here. What people get here now are Intel Pentium and Celeron-branded CPUs, or N-class CPUs, with the onboard GPU only, 4GB RAM and 1 TB HDD running unlicensed Windows with understandable results. But when you are a digitally illiterate parent seeking to purchase a first PC for your children of school age, this looks attractive enough at a good price point.
> Intel Pentium and Celeron-branded CPUs,
Don't look at the branding. Look at the core type, count, and speed (maybe).
It's been a while since I shopped Intel, but they used to typically release a low core count/lower clock speed Pentium/Celeron on the mainstream cores, often with no hyperthreading. These were typically low cost and could be a good value, you'd get decent single core performance because it's the newest architecture and multicore performance would be iffy but you can't have everything.
> N-class CPUs
These are definitely worth avoiding most of the time. Usually twice the cores, but much less performance per clock. Never feels fast for interactive work. But they make sense for some situations. Some of these get an n3 branding to trick people looking for i3s.
Don't look at the branding. Look at the core type, count, and speed (maybe).
It's been a while since I shopped Intel, but they used to typically release a low core count/lower clock speed Pentium/Celeron on the mainstream cores, often with no hyperthreading. These were typically low cost and could be a good value, you'd get decent single core performance because it's the newest architecture and multicore performance would be iffy but you can't have everything.
> N-class CPUs
These are definitely worth avoiding most of the time. Usually twice the cores, but much less performance per clock. Never feels fast for interactive work. But they make sense for some situations. Some of these get an n3 branding to trick people looking for i3s.
> These are definitely worth avoiding most of the time.
They may not be ideal for desktops, but they are great low power home server CPUs. In fact, they are much better than ARM alternatives like Raspberry Pis for the money.
They may not be ideal for desktops, but they are great low power home server CPUs. In fact, they are much better than ARM alternatives like Raspberry Pis for the money.
Yeah, I consider home server to be non-interactive. If it's got your connectivity needs (and won't self-destruct), n/atom is a good fit.
I indeed remember too the family of K6 chips and their Super Socket 7 motherboards. They were cheap and affordable, and allowed cpu upgrades to classical Socket 7 motherboards.
The peak of the Super Socket 7 performance CPUs was reached when AMD released the + versions of those chips, the K6-2+ and K6-3+. Those were initially designed for laptops with lower powerconsumption and some enhanced instruction set. But they quickly became common in typical overclockers setup.
I got myself a K6-3+ that I was able to overclock to around 600MHz, probably on an ASUS motherboard.
Back then AMD was fighting so much to get marketshare that you could order for free all types of merchandising from AMD like posters, stickers and CPU badges, and they would even ship it for free from US to Europe. I remember always bringing some to hacker meetings.
The peak of the Super Socket 7 performance CPUs was reached when AMD released the + versions of those chips, the K6-2+ and K6-3+. Those were initially designed for laptops with lower powerconsumption and some enhanced instruction set. But they quickly became common in typical overclockers setup.
I got myself a K6-3+ that I was able to overclock to around 600MHz, probably on an ASUS motherboard.
Back then AMD was fighting so much to get marketshare that you could order for free all types of merchandising from AMD like posters, stickers and CPU badges, and they would even ship it for free from US to Europe. I remember always bringing some to hacker meetings.
I happen to have one of those 600MHz chips on my bench currently! It's a K6-2+ that has had the remaining 128KB cache unlocked, making it a K6-3+. It is indeed a speedy chip, performing somewhere above a Pentium II-450 according to Speedsys.
Do you recall how long you used the platform or your next upgrade choice? :)
Do you recall how long you used the platform or your next upgrade choice? :)
K6 was great at everything other than FP. Unfortunately for AMD, a year before its launch ID released Quake, for which the primary metric of performance was basically "how fast are you at FP". And Quake very rapidly became the common benchmark against which CPU performance was measured.
I recall these being referred to as KMD
I remember writing a cyberpunk story as a kid, in which everyone was rocking badass 786s.
The Pentium III does sound like a good chip choice for a retro cyberpunk story. Like they said in “The Matrix”, 1999 was the peak of human civilization.
(586 became Pentium, so 686 would be the Pentium Pro/II microarchitecture.)
(586 became Pentium, so 686 would be the Pentium Pro/II microarchitecture.)
The cartridge-style packaging of the Pentium II/III’s was also peak for the lineup.
My favorite PC I ever built was a dual-CPU Tyan motherboard that eventually held two screaming fast Coppermines. Needed a university copy of Windows 2000 to really make them sing—the Windows 95 series never supported SMP—and it was glorious.
My favorite PC I ever built was a dual-CPU Tyan motherboard that eventually held two screaming fast Coppermines. Needed a university copy of Windows 2000 to really make them sing—the Windows 95 series never supported SMP—and it was glorious.
IIRC III was also 6th gen microarchitecture. Pentium IV was the 7th.
I remember 1999/2000-ish I had both a Pentium III/Intel motherboard and Athlon PC. The Pentium III system was rock solid, and performed fantasic. Even the CPU and motherboard looked amazing.
The Athlon was solid but less reliable, various reboots and glitches. I kind have always had a preference for Intel since then.
The Athlon was solid but less reliable, various reboots and glitches. I kind have always had a preference for Intel since then.
A lot of that probably came down to the motherboard chipset. IIRC Intel made their own chipsets for the Pentium III and they were good and reliable. Athlons were coupled with chipsets from VIA and whatnot.
Some of those chipsets were fine and others were less reliable or compatible. The quality of the drivers for each chipset may also have mattered.
Some of those chipsets were fine and others were less reliable or compatible. The quality of the drivers for each chipset may also have mattered.
P6 chip. Triple the speed of the Pentium.
RISC architecture is gonna change everything.
RISC architecture is gonna change everything.
You can watch Serial Experiments Lain. It is an anime from 1998.
1974: Intel 8080
1978: Intel 8086
1982: Intel 80286
1985: Intel 80386
1990: Intel 8010386
1995: Intel 801040386
2005: Intel 80107045386
2025: Intel 8.010207659386e12Not just you: the Tom Swift novels reboot in the 1990s had Tom once bragging about "the latest seven-eighty-six processor."
I recall as a teen wondering if the 486 was so good, how amazing a 1086 was going to be someday :D
Sadly still in the far future
Ah the pentium, aka 5-ium due to the penta- prefix. It is actually a nod from 4 to 5, but Intel wanted some cool name, and they decided penta + premium would sound cool, hence pentium.
But still, internally we call it i586, because that's the way it is. so is Pentium MMX which I reckon is called i686.
But still, internally we call it i586, because that's the way it is. so is Pentium MMX which I reckon is called i686.
Trademarks
> The name invoked the number five, but was completely trademarkable, unlike the number 586.
> The name invoked the number five, but was completely trademarkable, unlike the number 586.
Yes, and Intel had actually lost a legal attempt to stop people using the numbers (I can't remember if this was earlier in the 486 era or if it was something they tried first with 586).
But marketing was a large part of the reason that they started caring so much at that particular time. The Pentium line was the first time Intel had marketed directly to the end users¹² in part as a response to alt-486 manufacturers (AMD, Cyryx) doing the same with their products⁴ like clock-doubled units compatible with standard 486/487 targetted sockets (which were cheaper and, depending on workload, faster than the Intel upgrade options).
--------
[1] this was the era that “Intel Inside (di dum di dum)” initially came from
[2] that was also why the FDIV bug was such a big thing despite processor bugs³ being, within the industry, an accepted part of the complex design and manufacturing process
[3] for a few earlier examples: a 486 FPU bug that resulted in what should have been errors (such as overflow) being silently ignored, another (more serious) one in trig functions that resulted in a partial recall and the rest of that line being marked down as 486SX units (with a pin removed to effectively disable the FPU), similarly an entire stepping of 386 chips ended up sold as “for 16 bit code only”, going further back into the 8-bit days some versions of the 6502 had a bug or two in handling things (jump instructions, loading via relative references) that straddled page boundaries (which were mitigated in code by being careful with code/data alignment, no recalls, just errata published)
But marketing was a large part of the reason that they started caring so much at that particular time. The Pentium line was the first time Intel had marketed directly to the end users¹² in part as a response to alt-486 manufacturers (AMD, Cyryx) doing the same with their products⁴ like clock-doubled units compatible with standard 486/487 targetted sockets (which were cheaper and, depending on workload, faster than the Intel upgrade options).
--------
[1] this was the era that “Intel Inside (di dum di dum)” initially came from
[2] that was also why the FDIV bug was such a big thing despite processor bugs³ being, within the industry, an accepted part of the complex design and manufacturing process
[3] for a few earlier examples: a 486 FPU bug that resulted in what should have been errors (such as overflow) being silently ignored, another (more serious) one in trig functions that resulted in a partial recall and the rest of that line being marked down as 486SX units (with a pin removed to effectively disable the FPU), similarly an entire stepping of 386 chips ended up sold as “for 16 bit code only”, going further back into the 8-bit days some versions of the 6502 had a bug or two in handling things (jump instructions, loading via relative references) that straddled page boundaries (which were mitigated in code by being careful with code/data alignment, no recalls, just errata published)
I remember when IBM was upset that various companies were calling their 80286 computers "<Brandname> AT" like the IBM AT ("advanced technology"). But you can't trademark a preposition!
It's not that simple -- you can definitely trademark a preposition. Go search USPTO, it's not hard to find some: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/90234636
i686 was the microarchitecture introduced with the Pentium Pro and then Pentium II.
If I am correct, the Pentium Pro was the first "out of order" design. It specialized in 32-bit code, and did not handle 16-bit code very well.
The original Pentium I believe introduced a second pipeline that required a compiler to optimize for it to achieve maximum performance.
AMD actually made successful CPUs based on Berkeley RISC, similar to SPARC (they used register windows). The AMD K5 had this RISC CPU at its core. AMD bought NexGen and improved their RISC design for the K6 then Athlon.
The original Pentium I believe introduced a second pipeline that required a compiler to optimize for it to achieve maximum performance.
AMD actually made successful CPUs based on Berkeley RISC, similar to SPARC (they used register windows). The AMD K5 had this RISC CPU at its core. AMD bought NexGen and improved their RISC design for the K6 then Athlon.
Because of the branding change, history will remember the Pentium (P5). It was really the Pentium
Pro (P6) that put Intel leaps ahead on x86 microarchitecture, a lead they’d hold with only a few minor stumbles for two decades.
Bob Colwell (mentioned elsewhere ITT) wrote a fascinating technical history of the P6: The Pentium Chronicles.
Bob Colwell (mentioned elsewhere ITT) wrote a fascinating technical history of the P6: The Pentium Chronicles.
The major stumble being having to cross licence AMD for the x64 opcode design thus ensuring at least two players in the field (and due to how it's going only two).
They also started to slip behind AMD in the Pentium 4/NetBurst era, but got their footing back with Core (a more direct descendant of the P6 than the Pentium 4!)
Around the same time, but I’d classify as separate stumbles.
Around the same time, but I’d classify as separate stumbles.
During P4 Intel kept their footing with bribes. Article touches on this
"Some companies, notably Dell, remained Intel-only well into the 21st century,"
Dell was receiving $1Billion a year in bribes from Intel https://247wallst.com/consumer-electronics/2007/02/02/michea...
"The documents filed in District Court claim that there were $1 billion in kickbacks and payments."
That was the only way to make big boys plunge into Pentium 4 with Rambus fiasco.
"Some companies, notably Dell, remained Intel-only well into the 21st century,"
Dell was receiving $1Billion a year in bribes from Intel https://247wallst.com/consumer-electronics/2007/02/02/michea...
"The documents filed in District Court claim that there were $1 billion in kickbacks and payments."
That was the only way to make big boys plunge into Pentium 4 with Rambus fiasco.
Small correction, Pentium Pro was the first OoO microprocessor from Intel. Others like IBM POWER1 came earlier
I'm really not sure if POWER1 and PowerPC 603 should be counted as OoO or not.
It's certainly not the same kind of OoO. They had register renaming¹, But only enough storage for a few renamed registers. And they didn't have any kind of scheduler.
The lack of a scheduler meant execution units still executed all instructions in program order. The only way you could get out-of-order execution is when instructions went down different pipelines. A floating point instruction could finish execution before a previous integer instruction even started, but you could never execute two floating point instructions Out-of-Order. Or two memory instructions, or two integer instructions.
While the Pentium Pro had a full scheduler. Any instruction within the 40 μop reorder buffer could theoretically execute in any order, depending on when their dependencies were available.
Even on the later PowerPCs (like the 604) that could reorder instructions within an execution unit, the scheduling was still very limited. There was only a two entry reservation station in front of each execution unit, and it would pick whichever one was ready (and oldest). One entry could hold a blocked instruction for quite a while many later instructions passed it through the second entry.
And this two-entry reservation station scheme didn't even seem to work. The laster PowerPC 750 (aka G3) and 7400 (aka G4) went back to singe entry reservation stations on every execution unit except for the load-store units (which stuck with two entries).
It's not until the PowerPC 970 (aka G5) that we see a PowerPC design with substantial reordering capabilities.
¹ well on the PowerPC 603, only the FPU had register naming, but the POWER1 and all later PowerPCs had integer register renaming
It's certainly not the same kind of OoO. They had register renaming¹, But only enough storage for a few renamed registers. And they didn't have any kind of scheduler.
The lack of a scheduler meant execution units still executed all instructions in program order. The only way you could get out-of-order execution is when instructions went down different pipelines. A floating point instruction could finish execution before a previous integer instruction even started, but you could never execute two floating point instructions Out-of-Order. Or two memory instructions, or two integer instructions.
While the Pentium Pro had a full scheduler. Any instruction within the 40 μop reorder buffer could theoretically execute in any order, depending on when their dependencies were available.
Even on the later PowerPCs (like the 604) that could reorder instructions within an execution unit, the scheduling was still very limited. There was only a two entry reservation station in front of each execution unit, and it would pick whichever one was ready (and oldest). One entry could hold a blocked instruction for quite a while many later instructions passed it through the second entry.
And this two-entry reservation station scheme didn't even seem to work. The laster PowerPC 750 (aka G3) and 7400 (aka G4) went back to singe entry reservation stations on every execution unit except for the load-store units (which stuck with two entries).
It's not until the PowerPC 970 (aka G5) that we see a PowerPC design with substantial reordering capabilities.
¹ well on the PowerPC 603, only the FPU had register naming, but the POWER1 and all later PowerPCs had integer register renaming
It was intel's (at least) second OoO processor, after i960 - from which it pulled important team members.
Was i960 OoO?
Yes, with branch prediction and speculative execution too
Interesting, apparently it did scoreboarding like the CDC6600 and allowed multiple memory loads in flight, but I can't find a definite statement on whether it did renaming (I.e. writes to the same registers stalled). It might not be OoO as per modern definition, but is also not a fully on-order design.
OoO is a surprisingly old idea, first used in the IBM System/360 Model 91 released all the way back in 1966.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasulo's_algorithm
Took a while until transistor budgets allowed it to be implemented in consumer microprocessors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasulo's_algorithm
Took a while until transistor budgets allowed it to be implemented in consumer microprocessors.
Also for the gap between CPU speed and memory speed to matter enough for it to be worthwhile.
Very true, Bob Colwell was hired with past experience in this, I think from "Cyndrome" (edit: Multiflow).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459128
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459128
> The original Pentium I believe introduced a second pipeline that required a compiler to optimize for it to achieve maximum performance.
It wasn't a full pipeline, but large parts of the integer ALU and related circuitry were duplicated so that complex (time-consuming) instructions like multiply could directly follow each other without causing a pipeline bubble. Things were still essentially executed entirely in-order but the second MUL (or similar) could start before the first was complete, if it didn't depend upon the result of the first, and the Pentium line had a deeper pipeline than previous Intel chips to take most advantage of this.
The compiler optimisations, and similar manual code changes with the compiler wasn't bright enough, were to reduce the occurrence of instructions depending on the results of the instructions before, which would make the pipeline bubble come back as the subsequent instructions couldn't be started until the current one was complete. This was also a time when branch prediction became a major concern, and further compiler optimisations (and manual coding tricks) were used to help here too, because aborting a deep pipeline because of a branch (or just stalling the pipeline at the conditional branch point until the decision is made) causes quite a performance cost.
It wasn't a full pipeline, but large parts of the integer ALU and related circuitry were duplicated so that complex (time-consuming) instructions like multiply could directly follow each other without causing a pipeline bubble. Things were still essentially executed entirely in-order but the second MUL (or similar) could start before the first was complete, if it didn't depend upon the result of the first, and the Pentium line had a deeper pipeline than previous Intel chips to take most advantage of this.
The compiler optimisations, and similar manual code changes with the compiler wasn't bright enough, were to reduce the occurrence of instructions depending on the results of the instructions before, which would make the pipeline bubble come back as the subsequent instructions couldn't be started until the current one was complete. This was also a time when branch prediction became a major concern, and further compiler optimisations (and manual coding tricks) were used to help here too, because aborting a deep pipeline because of a branch (or just stalling the pipeline at the conditional branch point until the decision is made) causes quite a performance cost.
The Pentium was not just pipelined but also superscalar; it had two pipelines (U and V). U implemented all instructions, V only implemented a subset of simpler ones, and only when using simple (prefix-less) encodings.
As the CPU was not out of order, to execute two instructions per clock you had to pair them so that the second one was simple, and did not use the output of the first one. Existing code and most compilers around at the time were generally bad at this, but things like inner render loops in games could make a lot of use if you wrote them in assembly.
As the CPU was not out of order, to execute two instructions per clock you had to pair them so that the second one was simple, and did not use the output of the first one. Existing code and most compilers around at the time were generally bad at this, but things like inner render loops in games could make a lot of use if you wrote them in assembly.
That reminds of using the pencil method on an Athlon to
overclock.
Didn't the Celeron 333 (easily overclockable to 450) also have a similar pencil short hack to enable SMP in a dual slot mb?
I always figured the "-ium" part was in imitation of element naming, to make it sound scientific
Por qué no los dos? If "-ium" makes nerds think of an element name, and others of a premium product, all the better. I'd bet both of these interpretations were listed in the original internal marketing presentation of the name...
> but Intel wanted some cool name, and they decided penta + premium would sound cool, hence pentium
some say that they tried to add 486 with 100 and the result had some numbers after the comma, that's why they named it pentium (yes, i know about the FDIV bug)
some say that they tried to add 486 with 100 and the result had some numbers after the comma, that's why they named it pentium (yes, i know about the FDIV bug)
Self-correction: Pentium MMX is still i586, it is Pentium Pro that is i686, the confusion is real.
I remember a 120MHz Pentium Linux box arriving at a cottage in Crete, where, with the aid of a 56k USRobotics modem, we (my wife and I) worked remotely in 1995-6. She had a Mac SE/30 for her tourist guidebook work. She later upgraded to a 6100 PowerMac "pizza-box", various iMacs, G3/G4/G5, whereas I saved a quad-200MHz PentiumPro monster (Compaq Professional Workstation 8000, tricked up to 3GB RAM) from the skip. I regret taking that to the recycling centre many years later.
My first PC was a 286/12 with an AMD chip in it.
I well remember the 486SX/2-66's and how terrible they were. I liked to say that Compaq put the "sorry" in Presario.
In the late 90's, between around 96 and 98, I made good money building AMD 486 DX/4 133's. Those things were blindingly fast for the price. As I recall there was even a 150MHz variant.
Still, my favorite CPU of all time remains the AMD K6/2-450. It wasn't until the Phenom II BE950, a dual core that I unlocked to quad core , that I felt I had a CPU that matched the K6/2-450 in value. Since then I've had a couple of Ryzen's for my daily driver/work machine, and couldn't be happier. AMD has done a fantastic job keeping price and performance in tune. But, it goes even further if you shop smartly.
Overall, this was an excellent read, and brought back a lot of memories. The 6x86 for example- too much promise for what they actually delivered. And, thanks to this article I now know why so many cheap motherboards had their CPU's soldered. It wasn't a technology decision, but a legal one. I had no idea of that at the time.
I well remember the 486SX/2-66's and how terrible they were. I liked to say that Compaq put the "sorry" in Presario.
In the late 90's, between around 96 and 98, I made good money building AMD 486 DX/4 133's. Those things were blindingly fast for the price. As I recall there was even a 150MHz variant.
Still, my favorite CPU of all time remains the AMD K6/2-450. It wasn't until the Phenom II BE950, a dual core that I unlocked to quad core , that I felt I had a CPU that matched the K6/2-450 in value. Since then I've had a couple of Ryzen's for my daily driver/work machine, and couldn't be happier. AMD has done a fantastic job keeping price and performance in tune. But, it goes even further if you shop smartly.
Overall, this was an excellent read, and brought back a lot of memories. The 6x86 for example- too much promise for what they actually delivered. And, thanks to this article I now know why so many cheap motherboards had their CPU's soldered. It wasn't a technology decision, but a legal one. I had no idea of that at the time.
I had a K6/2 back in the day. There was a Pentium 4 machine and then a refurbed HP desktop with a Phenom II X4 in it. I used that until I (perhaps finally) built a machine with a Ryzen 1700x.
I'm not sure where or why I have so many AM4 machines around, but my kids are still playing games fine on machines with a 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen in them.
I just upgraded another to a Ryzen 5 5500. I plan to get a few more years out of it.
The bang for my buck has been pretty high. I don't believe CPUs go obsolete immediately like they used to.
I'm not sure where or why I have so many AM4 machines around, but my kids are still playing games fine on machines with a 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen in them.
I just upgraded another to a Ryzen 5 5500. I plan to get a few more years out of it.
The bang for my buck has been pretty high. I don't believe CPUs go obsolete immediately like they used to.
I had an AMD 5x86 @133 that lasted me several years... I had the secondary cache module and 64mb of ram, which was a lot for the time. It wasn't great for gaming, but general productivity software and just simple web browsing it was kind of a beast from the ram/cache performance. The next computer I really remember was an OC'd AMD Duron at 1ghz.
I bought an AMD Sempron "single core" CPU for a pittance (can't remember now how much it was, but it was the cheapest new CPU available) and as able to unlock the second core in the BIOS immediately with no issues, saving a ton of money. Those were the days.
Fellow AMD fan here—it wasn't that long ago that I finally relinquished the old ABIT motherboard that overclocked my AMD badboy to eke out extra cycles for my DAW.
Also, for Half Life.
Also, for Half Life.
Oh man, my first custom build had a Phenom II 955 BE. Overclocked beautifully, I loved that system. Got it in a barebones kit from good old TigerDirect, RIP
Another interesting episode "after the 486" was the switch from 32 bit to 64 bit, where Intel wanted to bury the ghost of the 8086 once and for all and switched to a completely new architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64), while AMD opted to extend the x86 architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64). This was probably the first time that customers voted with their feet against Intel in a major way. The Itanium CPUs with the new architecture were quickly rechristened "Itanic" and Intel grudgingly had to switch to AMDs instruction set - that's the reason why the current instruction set still used by all "x86" CPUs is often referred to as AMD-64.
What I find interesting is that Intel engineers actually designed their own 64-bit extension, somewhere along the same lines as AMD64.
Intel's marketing department threw a fit, they didn't want the Pentium 4 competing with their flagship Itanium. Bob Colwell was directly ordered to remove the 64-bit functionality.
Which he kind of did, kind of didn't. The functionally was still there, but fused off when Netburst shipped.
If it wasn't for AMD beating them to market with AMD64, Intel would have probably eventually allowed their engineers to enable the 64-bit extension. And when it did come time to add AMD64 support to the Pentium 4 (later Prescott and Cedar Mill models) the existing 64-bit support probably made for a good starting point.
Bob Colwell talks about this (and some of the x86 team vs Itanium team drama) in his quora answer and followup comments: https://www.quora.com/How-was-AMD-able-to-beat-Intel-in-deli...
Intel's marketing department threw a fit, they didn't want the Pentium 4 competing with their flagship Itanium. Bob Colwell was directly ordered to remove the 64-bit functionality.
Which he kind of did, kind of didn't. The functionally was still there, but fused off when Netburst shipped.
If it wasn't for AMD beating them to market with AMD64, Intel would have probably eventually allowed their engineers to enable the 64-bit extension. And when it did come time to add AMD64 support to the Pentium 4 (later Prescott and Cedar Mill models) the existing 64-bit support probably made for a good starting point.
Bob Colwell talks about this (and some of the x86 team vs Itanium team drama) in his quora answer and followup comments: https://www.quora.com/How-was-AMD-able-to-beat-Intel-in-deli...
Around the time of K8 being released, I remember reading official intel roadmaps announced to normal people, and they essentially planned that for at least few more years if not more they will segment into increasingly consumer-only 32bit and IA-64 on the higher end
Itanium was bonkers in lots of ways—very cool in others.
But this market segmentation idea just seems absolutely insane to me in a way I’ve never had anyone satisfactorily explain.
It requires Intel to voluntarily destroy the commodity economics that put their CPUs on a rocket ship to domination.
It’s as if they actually bought into the RISC FUD from the 1990’s that x86 was unscalable, exactly when it was taking its biggest leaps.
But this market segmentation idea just seems absolutely insane to me in a way I’ve never had anyone satisfactorily explain.
It requires Intel to voluntarily destroy the commodity economics that put their CPUs on a rocket ship to domination.
It’s as if they actually bought into the RISC FUD from the 1990’s that x86 was unscalable, exactly when it was taking its biggest leaps.
They were trying to compete with Sun and IBM in the server space (SPARC and Power) and thought that they needed a totally pro architecture (which Itanium was). The baggage of 32-bit x86 would have just slowed it all down. However having an x86-64 would have confused customers in the middle.
Think back then it was all about massive databases - that was where the big money was and x86 wasn't really setup for the top end load patterns of databases (or OLAP data lakes).
Think back then it was all about massive databases - that was where the big money was and x86 wasn't really setup for the top end load patterns of databases (or OLAP data lakes).
Steve Jobs quote seems appropriate and yet still hard for companies to learn: "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will"
In the end, Intel did cannibalize themselves. It wasn’t too long after the Itanium launch that Intel was publicly presenting a roadmap that had Xeons as the appealing mass-market server product.
Yeah they actually survived quite well. Who knows how much they put into Itanium but in the end they did pull the plug and Xeons dominated the market for years.
They even had a chance with mobile chips using ATOM but ARM was too compelling and I think Apple was sick of the Intel dependency so when there was an opportunity in the mobile space to not be so deeply tied to Intel they took it.
They even had a chance with mobile chips using ATOM but ARM was too compelling and I think Apple was sick of the Intel dependency so when there was an opportunity in the mobile space to not be so deeply tied to Intel they took it.
I think the difference was that replacing Itaniums with Xeons on the roadmap didn't seriously hurt margins (probably helped!)
The problem with mobile was that it fundamentally required low-margin products, and Intel never (or way too late) realized that was a kind of business they should want to be in.
The problem with mobile was that it fundamentally required low-margin products, and Intel never (or way too late) realized that was a kind of business they should want to be in.
> and thought that they needed a totally pro architecture (which Itanium was).
Was it though ? They made a new CPU from scratch, promissing to replace Alpha, PA-RISC and MIPS, but the first release was a flop.
The only "win" of Itanium that I see, is that it eliminated some competitors in low and medium end server market: MIPS and PA-RISC, with SPARC being on life support.
Was it though ? They made a new CPU from scratch, promissing to replace Alpha, PA-RISC and MIPS, but the first release was a flop.
The only "win" of Itanium that I see, is that it eliminated some competitors in low and medium end server market: MIPS and PA-RISC, with SPARC being on life support.
The deep and close relationship of Compaq with Intel meant that it also killed off Alpha, which unlike MIPS and PA-RISC wasn't going out by itself (Itanium was explicitly to be PA-RISC replacement, in fact it started as one, while SGI had issues with MIPS. SPARC was reeling from the radioactive cache scandal at the time but wasn't in as bad condition as MIPS, AFAIK)
I never used them but my understanding is that the performance was solid - but in a market with incumbents you don't just need to be as good as them you need to be significantly better or significantly cheaper. My sense was that it met expectations but that it wasn't enough for people to switch over.
Merced (first generation Itanium) had hilariously bad performance, and its built in "x86 support" was even slower.
HP-designed later cores were much faster and omitted x86 hardware support replacing it with software emulation if needed, but ultimately IA-64 rarely ever ran with good performance as far as I know.
Pretty sure it was Itanium that finally turned "Sufficiently Smart Compiler" into curse phrase as it is understood today, and definitely popularized it.
HP-designed later cores were much faster and omitted x86 hardware support replacing it with software emulation if needed, but ultimately IA-64 rarely ever ran with good performance as far as I know.
Pretty sure it was Itanium that finally turned "Sufficiently Smart Compiler" into curse phrase as it is understood today, and definitely popularized it.
Just remembered that part of the story:
Part of the effort to ditch x86 was to destroy competition that existed due to second sourcing agreements. After already trying and losing in court the case to prevent AMD and others from making compatible chips, Intel hoped to push IA-64 for the lucrative high performance markets it dominated in PCs, and prevent rise of compatible designs from other vendors.
Part of the effort to ditch x86 was to destroy competition that existed due to second sourcing agreements. After already trying and losing in court the case to prevent AMD and others from making compatible chips, Intel hoped to push IA-64 for the lucrative high performance markets it dominated in PCs, and prevent rise of compatible designs from other vendors.
> It’s as if they actually bought into the RISC FUD from the 1990’s that x86 was unscalable, exactly when it was taking its biggest leaps.
That's exactly what was happening.
Though it helps to realise that this argument was taking place inside Intel around 1997. The Pentium II is only just hitting the market, it wasn't exactly obvious that x86 was right in the middle making its biggest leaps.
RISC was absolutely dominating the server/workstation space, this was slightly before the rise of the cheap x86 server. Intel management was desperate to break into the server/workstation space, and they knew they needed a high end RISC cpu. It was kind of general knowledge in the computer space at the time that RISC was the future.
That's exactly what was happening.
Though it helps to realise that this argument was taking place inside Intel around 1997. The Pentium II is only just hitting the market, it wasn't exactly obvious that x86 was right in the middle making its biggest leaps.
RISC was absolutely dominating the server/workstation space, this was slightly before the rise of the cheap x86 server. Intel management was desperate to break into the server/workstation space, and they knew they needed a high end RISC cpu. It was kind of general knowledge in the computer space at the time that RISC was the future.
I wonder what their engineers thought.
Honestly what broke Itanium the most was the extreme market segmentation that made Itanium very expensive with no path to mass use.
Resulting in claim like "it's pretty good DSP, but hilariously overpriced".
Resulting in claim like "it's pretty good DSP, but hilariously overpriced".
Exactly! But this was not just obvious in retrospect, it was what Intel was saying to the market (& OEMs) at the time!
The only way I can rationalize it is that Intel just "missed" that servers hooked up to networks running integer-heavy, branchy workloads were going to become a big deal. OK, few predicted the explosive growth of the WWW, but look around at the growth of workgroup computing in the early 1990's and this should have been obvious?
The only way I can rationalize it is that Intel just "missed" that servers hooked up to networks running integer-heavy, branchy workloads were going to become a big deal. OK, few predicted the explosive growth of the WWW, but look around at the growth of workgroup computing in the early 1990's and this should have been obvious?
I'm not sure thats a fair description of server workloads. I'm also not sure it's fair to say Itanium was bad at integer-heavy, branchy workloads (at least not compared to Netburst)
The issue is more that server workloads are very memory bound, and it turns out the large OoO windows do an exceptional job of hiding memory latency. I'm sure the teams actually building OoO processors knew this, but maybe it wasn't obvious outside them.
Besides, Itanium was also designed to hide memory latency with its very flexible memory prefetch systems.
The main difference between the two approaches is static scheduling vs dynamic scheduling.
Itanium was the ultimate expression of the static scheduling approach. It required that mythical "smart enough compiler" to statically insert the correct prefetch instructions at the most optimal places. They had to strike a balance simultaneously wasting resources issuing unneeded prefetches and unable to issue enough prefetches because they were hidden behind branches.
While the OoO x86 cores had extra runtime scheduling overhead, but could dynamically issue the loads when they were needed. An OoO core can see branches behind multiple speculative branches (dozens of speculative branches on modern cores). And a lot of people miss the fact than an OoO core can actually take the branch miss-predict penalty (multiple times) that are blocked behind a slow memory instruction that's going all the way to main memory. Sometimes the branch mispredict cycles are entirely hidden.
In the 90s, static scheduling vs dynamic scheduling was very much an open question. It was not obvious just how much it would fall flat on its face (at least for high end CPUs).
The issue is more that server workloads are very memory bound, and it turns out the large OoO windows do an exceptional job of hiding memory latency. I'm sure the teams actually building OoO processors knew this, but maybe it wasn't obvious outside them.
Besides, Itanium was also designed to hide memory latency with its very flexible memory prefetch systems.
The main difference between the two approaches is static scheduling vs dynamic scheduling.
Itanium was the ultimate expression of the static scheduling approach. It required that mythical "smart enough compiler" to statically insert the correct prefetch instructions at the most optimal places. They had to strike a balance simultaneously wasting resources issuing unneeded prefetches and unable to issue enough prefetches because they were hidden behind branches.
While the OoO x86 cores had extra runtime scheduling overhead, but could dynamically issue the loads when they were needed. An OoO core can see branches behind multiple speculative branches (dozens of speculative branches on modern cores). And a lot of people miss the fact than an OoO core can actually take the branch miss-predict penalty (multiple times) that are blocked behind a slow memory instruction that's going all the way to main memory. Sometimes the branch mispredict cycles are entirely hidden.
In the 90s, static scheduling vs dynamic scheduling was very much an open question. It was not obvious just how much it would fall flat on its face (at least for high end CPUs).
Well, TBH it wasn't all FUD - hanging on to x86 eventually (much later) came back to bite them when x86 CPUs weren't competitive for tablets and smartphones, leading to Apple developing their own ARM-based RISC CPUs (which run circles around the previous x86 CPUs) and dumping Intel altogether.
It is interesting how so much of the speculation in those days was about how x86 was a dead end because it couldn’t scale up, but the real issue ended up being that it didn’t scale down.
Well, it turns out that it could scale up, it just needed more power than other architectures. As long as it was only servers and desktop PCs, you only noticed it in more elaborate cooling and maybe on your power bill, and even with laptops, x86 compatibility was more important than the higher power usage for a long time. It's just when high-performance CPUs started to be put in devices with really limited power budgets that x86 started looking really bad...
If this is true or not I don't know, but I worked on a project with an HP employee and we were talking about the Itanium. At some point the HP guy goes "You know we more or less designed that thing, right?"
I would tend to believe that the Itanium is an HP product, given that they've always seems more invested in the platform than Intel.
I would tend to believe that the Itanium is an HP product, given that they've always seems more invested in the platform than Intel.
Yes, it was originally designed as a successor to HP PA-RISC and then brought to Intel. I don't know how much it changed from the original design during development at Intel.
I remember those Cyrix chips well. We had a little shop where we would assemble boxes to spec. And hey, a 486 is a 486, we reasoned. They were cheap, ran cool, and just about as fast as the others.
Me too, and I recall the Cyrix "Pentium-like" chips were cheaper and faster than Intel's actual Pentium chips! [1]
[1] https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/49259.html
[1] https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/49259.html
Yea I'll take "Things that make me feel old for $1000 Alex."
I remember not believing my friend when he said that the OS and the games were inside the computer and didn't need to be loaded up via a floppy disk. That was my first time seeing a hard drive.
My very first hard drive was for an Apple //gs. It was the size of a shoebox and was a whopping 5 megabytes. I was an Egghead employee at the time and after my employee discount, it was something like $600-$700.
First hard drive I bought for a PC was 20MB. I remember thinking how I would never fill it.
[deleted]
Something something Intel tried to add 100 to 486, got 585.97858475858473737272747837 and just called it pentium
0xf00fc7c8
Shouldn't that be 0xc8c70ff0, since we're talking about a little-endian CPU? (according to this[1] the bytes in memory are F0 0F C7 C8).
On the other hand, I probably wouldn't have recognized the F00F bug mention if you had actually written 0xc8c70ff0.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug
On the other hand, I probably wouldn't have recognized the F00F bug mention if you had actually written 0xc8c70ff0.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug
It was a popular meme in computer security focused groups for a while after it was discovered since it was an unprivileged DoS. I only remember seeing it talked about with the f00f representation: some people even called it "getting f00f'd" if you managed to trick someone into executing the instructions.
The years when Pentium came was a bit of an shitshow. As the article said, there were 7 companies producing 486 processors but after that the market was mostly Intel, AMD and little Cyrix. Then came socket-A vs. slot-A etc. Now looking back it seems like there was lot of changes in short period of time.
Things started progressing so fast in mid nineties that brand new top of the line computer was being matched in performance by low end offerings 2 years later. Lasted up to late 2000.
December 1998 $85 Celeron 300A handily beating June 97 $594 Pentium 233 MMX, not to mention overclocked one matching 1998 $621-824 Pentium 2s.
January 2002 $120 Duron 1300/Celeron 1300 beating 2000 $1000 Athlon 1000/Pentium 3 1000-1133
June 2007 $40 Celeron 420 overclockable out of the box from stock 1.6 to 3.2GHz beat best $1000 CPUs of year 2005 (FX-57, P4 EE).
Same goes for Graphic chips starting around 1998/9.
December 1998 $85 Celeron 300A handily beating June 97 $594 Pentium 233 MMX, not to mention overclocked one matching 1998 $621-824 Pentium 2s.
January 2002 $120 Duron 1300/Celeron 1300 beating 2000 $1000 Athlon 1000/Pentium 3 1000-1133
June 2007 $40 Celeron 420 overclockable out of the box from stock 1.6 to 3.2GHz beat best $1000 CPUs of year 2005 (FX-57, P4 EE).
Same goes for Graphic chips starting around 1998/9.
> December 1998 $85 Celeron 300A handily beating June 97 $594 Pentium 233 MMX, not to mention overclocked one matching 1998 $621-824 Pentium 2s.
Ah, I remember the days of Intel's fabs doing “too good” a job and many more chips passing tests for faster use being produced than expected. To fulfil orders for the slower chips some of these better batches were marked down and sold as slower units, so if you were lucky you could really push the overclocking and get yourself a performance bargain. You also needed a good motherboard and quality RAM to pull it off reliably, of course.
Sillyrons is what we used to call the massively overclocked Celerons. At Uni a friend of mine made a good bit of pocket money from selling an optimisation service, for people who didn't feel confident playing with such settings themselves.
Ah, I remember the days of Intel's fabs doing “too good” a job and many more chips passing tests for faster use being produced than expected. To fulfil orders for the slower chips some of these better batches were marked down and sold as slower units, so if you were lucky you could really push the overclocking and get yourself a performance bargain. You also needed a good motherboard and quality RAM to pull it off reliably, of course.
Sillyrons is what we used to call the massively overclocked Celerons. At Uni a friend of mine made a good bit of pocket money from selling an optimisation service, for people who didn't feel confident playing with such settings themselves.
It wasn't just that. Mendocino wasn't a low bin, it was an entirely separate die from Pentium II. At the time, Pentium II used a 512kB off-die L2 cache, running at half cpu clock. To save on costs, Celeron 300A moved to a 128kB L2, which was integrated on the CPU die, and which ran at full cpu clock.
And it turns out that for a lot of software, a smaller but faster L2 was actually better than the bigger one. And because there were no fast products that used the Mendocino die, even the fastest of them were sold as Celerons. 300A was particularly nice because very nearly all of them could run at 450, and 100MHz FSB motherboards were widely available to pair with the fixed 4.5 multiplier of the CPU.
And it turns out that for a lot of software, a smaller but faster L2 was actually better than the bigger one. And because there were no fast products that used the Mendocino die, even the fastest of them were sold as Celerons. 300A was particularly nice because very nearly all of them could run at 450, and 100MHz FSB motherboards were widely available to pair with the fixed 4.5 multiplier of the CPU.
It's so much fun living through the steep bit of an S curve that we imagine it might last forever...
On other hand not being hopelessly outdated in a relatively short time does have perks. It is cheaper to not have to update constantly and still getting decent performance.
I get the feeling. The 90s in particular, maybe even until crysis went super fast. Then tech felt incredibly stagnant for over a decade.
But the time since 2020 feels much faster again. It's scary! But it's exciting.
But the time since 2020 feels much faster again. It's scary! But it's exciting.
Fun thing is with a tiny bit of manipulation you can run a P3 tualatin at 1.33ghz via a slot adapter and some pin disablement and some voltage mods (or if you had the right adapter a jumper) in a motherboard which came with a low tier P2 or even earlier. So without replacing your Asus P2B from very early 1998 well up to mid 00s with astonishing performance gains, that motherboard had a massive lifespan in the right hands. Mine is still running with a new voltage regulator to this day.
Better, throwing in two of those Celeron 300As into a modded dual socket MB... I remember running one of those OC'd Duron's at 1.1ghz... had a custom shim to better support the cpu cooler with it. IIRC, I ran it with a Voodoo 3 card and maxed out ram. Had 2x IBM Deathstar drives in Raid-0... that was the big mistake, crazy fast, but first drive died, and then the second before I could get an RMA on the first. Only the 3tb Seagate line was worse.
[deleted]
Pentium-compatible processors were more numerous than you think.
- AMD (K5/K6/K6-2/K6-III) - Intel (Pentium) - Centaur (IDT Winchip, later Via C3/C7/Nano) - Cyrix (6x86, 6x86MX) - Rise (mp6)
- AMD (K5/K6/K6-2/K6-III) - Intel (Pentium) - Centaur (IDT Winchip, later Via C3/C7/Nano) - Cyrix (6x86, 6x86MX) - Rise (mp6)
Nice nostalgic piece. I have a lot of fond "favorite chip" memories from that era.
Not to be too pedantic, I would contend that at the time, it was pretty clear to enthusiast what the differences were. Everyone in the industry was paying attention to 486s and the cost of a genuine intel chip. The FDIV bug was on every Evening News for weeks. AMD and Cyrix vs intel debates were common.
I agree that it is not obvious now that Pentium came after 486, but at the time, it was clear.
Not to be too pedantic, I would contend that at the time, it was pretty clear to enthusiast what the differences were. Everyone in the industry was paying attention to 486s and the cost of a genuine intel chip. The FDIV bug was on every Evening News for weeks. AMD and Cyrix vs intel debates were common.
I agree that it is not obvious now that Pentium came after 486, but at the time, it was clear.
Ah. There's a whole generation of people who never enjoyed the Intel inside / Pentium jingle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVafplZCsjU
Pentium marketing was next level. You could buy plushies of Intel workers in bunny suits. The first IMAX movie I went to was called "The Journey Inside", and it was basically a big ad for the Pentium.
I always wondered if some of that was to offset the negative publicity from the FDIV bug in the early Pentiums.
I always wondered if some of that was to offset the negative publicity from the FDIV bug in the early Pentiums.
I have a bunny suit plushie on my shelf to this day. The other Pentium marketing blitz I remember was in the 1998 Lost in Space which had a TV ad for a Pentium XXI or something. Also notable was the Silicon Graphics branding in that movie. Which I have always found amusing since SGI didn't have any consumer products and even for businesses the prices were "Call Us" which has always meant eye watering expensive.
"enjoyed"
It was annoying as it seemed every computer ad needed to play it, not just intel ads.
It was annoying as it seemed every computer ad needed to play it, not just intel ads.
They didn’t need to, it by playing it and slapping Intel Insude stickers on the computer, they got a substantial marketing fee/kickback per unit sold.
I had one of those 133 MHz 486 chips, think it was AMD. Nice DOS gaming machine.
The worst part about the 486 name was all the varieties, an uninformed consumer could get a real lemon.
The author links to an example:
https://dfarq.homeip.net/ibm-486slc2-cpu-when-a-clone-isnt-a...
You then had the 486 DLCs which were even worse. you'd get companies that sold 386 and even 286 systems with '486' chips, constrained by slow, 16-bit buses, etc.
The author links to an example:
https://dfarq.homeip.net/ibm-486slc2-cpu-when-a-clone-isnt-a...
You then had the 486 DLCs which were even worse. you'd get companies that sold 386 and even 286 systems with '486' chips, constrained by slow, 16-bit buses, etc.
The 486DLC was fully 32 bit. The 286/386SX-like model with a 16 bit bus was the 486SLC.
But, even a 486SLC wasn't all that bad at the time. It was still much faster than a 386DX for many things (DOOM, for example).
These AT-like machines limited users to 16-bit ISA cards for expansion, and a 24-bit address bus (16 MB RAM). But how many consumer PCs used more than that, back when your 32-bit bus options were VLB (video only), MCA (IBM only), or EISA (expensive servers/workstations only).
But, even a 486SLC wasn't all that bad at the time. It was still much faster than a 386DX for many things (DOOM, for example).
These AT-like machines limited users to 16-bit ISA cards for expansion, and a 24-bit address bus (16 MB RAM). But how many consumer PCs used more than that, back when your 32-bit bus options were VLB (video only), MCA (IBM only), or EISA (expensive servers/workstations only).
I was a poor kid building computers in the mid to late 90's. I tried everything I could NOT to use a true Pentium. My first build (coming from an upgraded Compaq 386DX) was an AMD 486 "DX4". I had a Diamond Stealth PCI VGA card and 16mb of DRAM. After that I tried a 233Mhz Cyrix 6x86. That chip was garbage. I had to run some software pentium emulation to get Cubase to run. I went 300Mhz Celeron after that. That was my first time trying the new SDRAM! After that I FINALLY got a legit Pentium III 400Mhz! I could go on and on as this is a lovely walk down memory lane and there's been some fun dips back into AMD Athlon/Ryzen/etc.
> I tried a 233Mhz Cyrix 6x86. That chip was garbage.
Those chips were excellent value for mostly integer work, but had incredibly poor floating-point performance which was a problem for gamers as the 3D era was really getting going around that time. I had one, it did me good service for a few years.
Those chips were excellent value for mostly integer work, but had incredibly poor floating-point performance which was a problem for gamers as the 3D era was really getting going around that time. I had one, it did me good service for a few years.
Yeah, I was all about recording music/running the first iteration of software synths. I was a Graphic Design major at that time so Photoshop/Illustrator/QuarkXpress were my jam. Those suprisingly didn't run that bad - in real Graphic Design, no one used Eyecandy (the reason everything on the web in 1998 had drop shadows, outter glows, lens flares) so rendering "3D" rarely came into play.
Not only performance, I strongly suspect there were issues with implementation too as the apps would just freeze/die frequently.
They were practically overclocked coming out of the factory, so if you had any issue at all with cooling, or attempted to clock them up even higher, they would be unstable.
"poor"
Fun fact: Bonnel Atoms (D510 etc) were not affected by the meltdown vulnerability that plagued every Pentium processor since the 1995 Pentiums. These Atoms use purely in-order execution engines which kinda makes them supercharged 486s.
I'll always have a fond spot in my heart for my cheap Cyrix CPU. Once I was near finishing an important project in the middle of the night and my CPU fan died. The cyrix chip would overheat in no time and shut down so I ended up filling a coffee mug with ice and jamming it up against the chip, giving me more precious minutes before it got hot enough to shut down again. I would swap out the ice in the mug and give it another go. I got that project done. :)
You got the water cooling before it was cool, minus the thermal paste.
I am almost 40 and only now realizing “pent”ium came after “4”86.
I'm also 50 and just realized it.
Second only to getting an SSD in my 2006-vintage laptop the AMD 5x86 was the best upgrade I ever put in a computer, dollars for performance. It made my 486SX-25 run like a 75Mhz+ Pentium. Linux kernel builds flew after that. I also fondly remember seeing little bits of "Second Reality" run better or show me things I'd never seen before (more of the sword extending further from the pool, as an example).
I really like that VIA produced a CPU with integrated graphics, prominently labeled "VIA GRA", the same year that the FDA approved sildenafil.
I remember I had a Cyrix 6x86 in one of my first computers that ran windows 95. It was terrible. When I tried to play games or run some apps with non-trivial performance requirements and, I suppose, that used floating point operations extensively, perhaps MMX or some other proprietary extensions, apps would just die. Often with the entire operating system.
That's quite a lot of words to say "Pentium"
Sure AMD and a few others had back-seat answers, but Intel was literally driving the bus.
Sure AMD and a few others had back-seat answers, but Intel was literally driving the bus.
Intel was figuratively, not literally, driving the bus.
PCI wasn't IBM. Literally driving the bus, Intel was, did, done.
https://timeline.intel.com/1993/peripheral-component-interco...
https://timeline.intel.com/1993/peripheral-component-interco...
I never felt during this era that the information about these chips was hard to come by as the author claims. Retrospectively I appreciate that’s because I grew up living by a large, well funded library in a tech centric town, so they always had all the latest tech publications.
Cool writeup. I never knew they moved to the name Pentium over 586 simply for trademark ability.
They add 100 to the 486, but they got 585.99999999.... so they called it Pentium
xD
> The original Pentium-branded CPU topped out at 200 MHz in the end, and the Pentium MMX-branded CPU reached 233 MHz.
There was a mobile 266MHz Pentium MMX, Tillamook
And it appears there was a 300MHz version according to Wikipedia.
There was a mobile 266MHz Pentium MMX, Tillamook
And it appears there was a 300MHz version according to Wikipedia.
Here's the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos
I still keep and metal case of my first 486 with 66Mhz CPU with Windows 3.11 installed and remember that Pentium 100Mhz was what people were buying next.
I remember the torment of trying to choose between a P90 or a Cyrix133 and compatible motherboards at similar price combinations.
Booting up a Pentium after having used a 486 for years was like driving on the high way compared to riding a toddler bike on a foot trail.
The AMD 5x86 was the first Machine i ran Linux on
This makes me feel old. I remember getting a 486 (DX4/100) in mid-1994, the Pentium was still too expensive!
A friend of mine bought a Pentium 60MHz from a local computer store, they originally wanted $10,000 for it, but he got it for $4,000.
It wasn't much more than a year later that I was able to get a Pentium 100MHz for $2000. It's amazing how fast things progressed back then.
It wasn't much more than a year later that I was able to get a Pentium 100MHz for $2000. It's amazing how fast things progressed back then.
I loved the 486DX/4 at 120MHz. That thing was fast.
Oof I'm old enough to remember the Cyrix chips. They were cheaper than the other players, which lured in a lot of people who then regretted it once they realised that they were constantly crashing hot-garbage. Good times.
Well pentiums of course!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_All_About_the_Pentiums
Some years later, back in my home country (Paraguay) I met a lady who had a side business being a VAR builder of desktop PCs. In my country, due to a lot of constraints, there was (and is) quite a money crunch and people tried to cheap out the most when purchasing computers. This gave rise to a lot of unscrupulous VAR resellers who built ultra-low quality, underpowered PCs with almost unusable specs at an attractive price while making a pretty profit. You could still get much better deals in both price and specs, but you had to have an idea about where to look.
Well, back to this lady. She said that during the early 2000s she was on the same line of business, selling beige box desktop PCs at the lowest possible prices. But she said that she loved the AMD K6 and K6/2 architectures because they provided considerable bang for the buck. The cost was affordable, and yet performance was good. Add some reasonable amounts of RAM and storage and you could have a well-performing PC at a good price. The downside, as she said, was that the processors tended to generate lots of heat and thus the fans had to be good. This was especially important in a very hot country like Paraguay. But the bottom line was that AMD K6 line enabled her to offer customers a good deal.
This made me appreciate what AMD did with K6. They really helped to bring good computers to the masses.