14 Jun
2026
14 Jun
'26
5:07 p.m.
I am not arguing about the fact that ARM sold way more, and/or that
it, and 68000 are way better than 80x86
It was somebody else who touted longevity and sales volume.
My post that you quoted was solely and only to address the comment that
8086 was "in response to" Motorola and Zilog offerings. For it to be "in
response to", those would have to have already existed.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026, Mike Katz via cctalk wrote:
Intel has shipped approximately 12 Billion CPUs since
it's introduction in
1978.
There have been more than 350 Billion ARM based CPUs sold since it's
introduction in 1985.
That means Intel is selling, on average, 250 Million per year in the 48 years
since it's introduction.
Whereas, ARM, on average, there have been 8.5 billion ARM based CPUs per year
in the 41 years since it's introduction.
ARM wins in sheer numbers and wins even more in terms of architecture
refinement and structure.
On 6/14/2026 12:56 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
>> Intel's x86 technology as in the 8086 came into existence for the
>> microcomputer-user at this time back in June 1978. It was a response to
>> Motorola's and Zilog's move to 16-bit processing. Still in use
today...the
>> basic tech so to speak. Can it be unseated by RISC(Apple and such) and
>> Nvidia?
>
> Intel 8086 was 1978
> Zilog Z8000 was march 1979
> Motorola 68000 was September 1979
>
> The Motorola 68000 was the best 16 bit microprocessor.
>
> But, the Intel 8086 was earlier. So, "a response to Motorola's and
> Zilog's move to 16-bit processing" seems a little far-fetched, unless we
> could also credit Intel with development of time travel - Did John Titor go
> back and help them :-?
>
> 'course there can also be "creative" definitions of "16 bit
processing",
> because it is not unambiguously defined.
>
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com