Should I go Athlon64 or Barton?

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:00:03 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:06:51 -0400, keith wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:12:39 +0200, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:

It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in order
not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus would
have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory configuration.
Remember, memory was *expensive*. ...as was SSI/MSI TTL and packaging.

Hmmm... Cost played a part in ti, but the 80xx architecture was chosen
because that's the only micro architecture the developers were familiar
with and they wanted to get it out fast. It was just a matter of months
before someone came out with a real 16 bit cpu, the 8086, and it wasn't
IBM.

First of all, the question was "why the 8088". The IBM originally was
going to go with the 8085 (which is not in any way the same architecture
as the 8086/8), which an entirely different group in IBM used at about the
same time for the "DataMaster". IBM had no real experience with either,
since up until then they generally used their own microprocessors. As the
story goes, Bill Gates convinced IBM ESD that 16bits was the way to go.
Once that decision was made, Intel was chosen primarily because it
"wasn't Motorola" and the 8088 was chosen because an 8088 system was much
cheaper than one using the 8086.

Second, the 8088 is by any reasonable definition a "real" 16-bit
processor. It has *exactly* the same architecture as the 8086, so if you
consider the 8086 a "real" 16b processor, then you must also admit that
the 8088 is.

It was more than a few months before the 8086 clones started.
Q had their clone out by summer though.

--
Keith

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:53:53 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:58:21 +0100, Daniel James wrote:

Compare that with the Z80 (8+16[1]+16+16=14 bits) the 6502 beloved of
Apple II and PET user (8+8+8+16=10 bits) and the 68000 (32+32+32+24=30
bits). Considering that these chips were all available when the PC was
designed: I know which chip *I'd* have used!

Me too, but the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus. And at the time, cpu's
were rated rated by the data bus width.

Nonsense. At the time bitness was a measure of the accumulator width.
The data bus had no bearing on it. Bus width is an implementation
detail. DO you consider the Pentium a 64bit processor?

Then 68000 which was defined by
Motorola as a 16 bit cpu is now define as a 32bit cpu.:-) 8088 (8/16)
was defined by Intel as an 8 bit cpu.

No it was not. The 8088 was always defined as a 16 bit processor. It was
marketed as a cost-reduced (at the system level) 8086.

Today it's defined as a 16bit CPU.
One can no longer take anything for granted as the companys have started
fudging and cludging numbers for marketing hype. Here's the best BS I've
ever seen. NEC compares their NEAX 2000 pbx to Toshiba's (forgot the
name) calling their processor a powerful 32bit bit compared to Toshibas
16bit. NEC was using a 486SLC (8 bit data bus) while Toshiba used a
68000 (16 bit data bues).:-)
Now if you have ever used the 2, you know what I mean.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:16:59 +0200, "jack" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
: On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:58:07 +0200, "jack" wrote:
:
:: gaffo wrote:
:: snip all
::
:: Dude, your sig is a bummer, man. As much as I agree with your
:: political views and frustrations entirely, your sig as it stands
:: simply has no place on Usenet...it's very unpolite (meaning WAY
too
:: large).
:
: What's new - another left-wing windbag!

Well, Vswm No. 1 steps up to the podium...

Thank you... thank you.... thank you. I'm honored to have such an award
from the likes of you.

:: Also, at least in this NG (.chips) your political
:: statements are falling more or less on deaf ears as this group is
:: populated with a large number of SWM (stupid white men) and even
a
:: few VSWM (V = very). Get my drift?
:
: One of those days, Jack (gaffo I dunno), you're going to waken up
to
: discover that all your liberal politicians are really just
: right-wingers pretending to err, take care of you... as they umm,
: liberally dip their
: hand in your pocket.:-) C.F. New Jersey McGreevey - another
: corrupt little "liberal" **** gets caught err, dipping.guffaw

FOAD you right-wing POS. In fact, why don't you stick your 9mm and
your bible right up your ass and do us ALL a favor, asshole.

Hey listen for the sound of jack-boots really carefully Jack. That car you
drive is a certain target for confiscation when your party of choice gets
its ducks in a row and cons everyone into getting it into power. But hey,
didn't they just get elected where you live? Oh dear, I wonder how long
it'll take??.... better keep your eye out for EC directives on the
subject... probably how they'll start. It certainly doesn't have a
"pedestrian friendly" front end either... a double whammy that, on top of
being such a conspicuous consumer of "valuable world resources".:-( Of
course before then, there's always the chance that some frenzied environut
will take matters into his own righteous hands - probably better to hide
it.

Yer a bloody living paradox my son.

Oh BTW, I don't own any 9mm or any other weapon and I'm a a born-again
pagan - not a bible in the house... sorry about that.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:18:34 +0200, jack wrote:
And so Vswm No. 2 steps up to spew his usual rhetoric. You're
even a bigger right-wing asshole than Vswm No. 1.....plonk!

See? The looney-left cannot stand anyone who disagrees
with them. Their heads are going to pop on Nov 3.

I can only value someone's opinion if they can debate
both sides of a question with approximately equal vigor.
Contentious decisions always boil down to personal values,
not logic nor facts.

-- Robert

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:33:28 -0400, keith wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:53:53 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

Me too, but the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus. And at the time, cpu's
were rated rated by the data bus width.

Nonsense. At the time bitness was a measure of the accumulator width.

It's obvious that you've never seen data sheets from the 1979 time period.
I've got a complete set. and it's called a 16bit cpu by Motorola and
Signetics (second source).

The data bus had no bearing on it. Bus width is an implementation
detail.

So tell me, just how old were you in '79? Were you even born yet? Did you
know what a microprocessor was at the time?

DO you consider the Pentium a 64bit processor?

Times have changed. I think i made that clear by refering to the time
period.

Then 68000 which was defined by
Motorola as a 16 bit cpu is now define as a 32bit cpu.:-) 8088 (8/16)
was defined by Intel as an 8 bit cpu.

No it was not.

Check data sheets fom the time period and you'll change your mind.:-)

The 8088 was always defined as a 16 bit processor. It
was marketed as a cost-reduced (at the system level) 8086.

At least you're half right here.

Today it's defined as a 16bit CPU.

Did you even read this?
Now if you would like to make a small wager of say $100,000.00. Let me
know. Bring the cash and I'll show you the data sheets. I like easy money.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:29:44 -0400, keith wrote:

Second, the 8088 is by any reasonable definition a "real" 16-bit
processor. It has *exactly* the same architecture as the 8086, so if you
consider the 8086 a "real" 16b processor, then you must also admit that
the 8088 is.

No one cares how you define, just as no one cares how I define, but the
fact is that Intel itself defined it as an 8 bit CPU when it first came
out. I had this same arguement a couple of years ago. Someone with a
scanner finally proved me right. I'm still willing to bet though.:-)

It was more than a few months before the 8086 clones started. Q had
their clone out by summer though.

I consider 3-6 to be a few. Now I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure 8086
clones showed up within that time period. And if it were 8 months, so what.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Dave wrote:

"gaffo" wrote in message
m...

Wes Newell wrote:


On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:03:11 +0000, gaffo wrote:



Feel free to *plonk* me it my sign offends.


Doesn't offend me.



thats good.




It just shows your stupidity and lack of consideration
for others.




My civic duty to my Nation as a citizen is more important then my
civility - Liberty is on the line.


How about the rest of the world? Do you actually think everybody else on
the whole planet actually cares about your particular political belief?

Why don't you target Bush's electorate with your views instead of the rest
of the world (those of us that have NG/internet access, anyway)?

Dave




good point Dave..............sadly I still must follow what I feel is my
duty, even if it offends non-US folks.

peace.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:17:42 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:18:34 +0200, jack wrote:
And so Vswm No. 2 steps up to spew his usual rhetoric. You're
even a bigger right-wing asshole than Vswm No. 1.....plonk!

See? The looney-left cannot stand anyone who disagrees
with them. Their heads are going to pop on Nov 3.

I can only value someone's opinion if they can debate
both sides of a question with approximately equal vigor.

Oh, I'm not on the high school debate team. I don't take both sides
(usually). I've formed my opinions (and have changed them 180 degrees
perhaps a couple of times) over my soon-to-be 34 years. ;-)

Contentious decisions always boil down to personal values, not logic nor
facts.

I'm not sure that's true. Ask anyone why they hate 'W'. ...or better
yet, John Ashcroft. You will not likely get a cogent answer. Hate is an
ugly emotion, that will consume all. We're seeing this today. THere
isn't even a "personal value" that can be stuck to this issue.

--
Keith

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:27:40 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:16:59 +0200, "jack" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
: On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:58:07 +0200, "jack" wrote:
:
:: gaffo wrote:
:: snip all
::
:: Dude, your sig is a bummer, man. As much as I agree with your
:: political views and frustrations entirely, your sig as it stands
:: simply has no place on Usenet...it's very unpolite (meaning WAY
too
:: large).
:
: What's new - another left-wing windbag!

Well, Vswm No. 1 steps up to the podium...

Thank you... thank you.... thank you. I'm honored to have such an award
from the likes of you.

Ah, come on man! Can't I get in here too?

:: Also, at least in this NG (.chips) your political
:: statements are falling more or less on deaf ears as this group is
:: populated with a large number of SWM (stupid white men) and even
a
:: few VSWM (V = very). Get my drift?
:
: One of those days, Jack (gaffo I dunno), you're going to waken up
to
: discover that all your liberal politicians are really just
: right-wingers pretending to err, take care of you... as they umm,
: liberally dip their
: hand in your pocket.:-) C.F. New Jersey McGreevey - another
: corrupt little "liberal" **** gets caught err, dipping.guffaw

FOAD you right-wing POS. In fact, why don't you stick your 9mm and
your bible right up your ass and do us ALL a favor, asshole.

Hey listen for the sound of jack-boots really carefully Jack. That car you
drive is a certain target for confiscation when your party of choice gets
its ducks in a row and cons everyone into getting it into power. But hey,
didn't they just get elected where you live? Oh dear, I wonder how long
it'll take??.... better keep your eye out for EC directives on the
subject... probably how they'll start. It certainly doesn't have a
"pedestrian friendly" front end either... a double whammy that, on top of
being such a conspicuous consumer of "valuable world resources".:-( Of
course before then, there's always the chance that some frenzied environut
will take matters into his own righteous hands - probably better to hide
it.

The ones with the jack-boots are the leftists. Look at campus speech
these days. Agree or leave!

Yer a bloody living paradox my son.

Oh BTW, I don't own any 9mm or any other weapon and I'm a a born-again
pagan - not a bible in the house... sorry about that.

I do. A .357 and a couple of .22s. I'm looking at a .45, but can't
"afford" it at this time. Besides I may move to a state where the
jack-boots like Jack only want the criminals armed.

Plonk along...

--
Keith

keith wrote:
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
[...]
It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in
order not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus
would have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory
configuration.

I actually thought it was more an issue of lack of support chips. IBM
couldn't build, in the 1-year time period they were given, an 8086 based
machine because the support chips for the 8086 simply weren't there. The
8088, sharing a very similar (possibly identical?) bus design to previous
8-bit CPUs, could use existing (mass-produced and relatively cheap) support
chips without any issues.

Of course, once the 8086-based clones came out, the IBM PC started getting
it's ass handed to it on a plate by them. Fortunately (from IBM's point of
view), it didn't matter too much because they weren't 100% compatible.

Remember, memory was *expensive*. ...as was SSI/MSI
TTL and packaging.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open