27 Dec
1998
27 Dec
'98
10:01 a.m.
Tim Hotze <tim(a)thereviewguide.com> wrote:
I don't know why Intel's 'low cost'
processors are always so bone headed:
486SX, which removed the one true thing that made it a 486, 8088, removing
the crucial 16-bit bus of the 8086, 386SX, which worked pretty well, but
still halfed the external bandwidth (did Intel ever make a cheap version of
a 286?), and now we've got Celeron: Until the Celron A, no cache at all...
Well, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment...
Pretend you're Intel. (Only smarter.) How would YOU make a low cost version
of the 8086, in a non-bone-headed way?
The 386?
The 486?
The Pentium II?
Bear in mind that you've already done all of the expensive engineering
necessary for the expensive full-performance processors; those are sunk
costs. But now you want to offer a lower-priced processor, without
seriously diminshing sales of your full price model.
It's not a simple problem with an easy answer. I'm very reluctant to claim
that Intel did it wrong.
And in case you're wondering, no, I've never worked for Intel. I personally
find the x86 architecture revolting. Despite that, I have a great deal of
respect for the engineers that managed to take a toaster controller from
1978 and turn it into a world-class 32-bit superscalar processor. Imagine
what they could have accomplished if they'd started from a GOOD architecture.
Eric