Interesting picture from an old chip

[pete4r]

I got this image from a topic that people been listing CPUs, it is funny the writting on it says Copyright Intel 1978 but the chip had an AMD logo? :roll:

the chip was made before i was born so i dont know much history about it but any1 can fill me a lil detail about it wud be much appreciated 8)

 

[jitpublisher]

This is not an Intel chip, it's an Intel clone manufactured by AMD (i.e INTEL 8088 compatible) using a license granted to them by INTEL ( hence the © INTEL or copyright of INTEL , copyrighted in 1978).

 

[mesarectifier]

Yupsy, it's a cloned chip from Intel. AMD have only been making their own stuff for a relatively short amount of time.

 

[MoNeY3865]

I had hoped that someone would notice this and wonder. Lot's of companies made Intel designed chips, even up to the 386 and I think even 486 eras. Here is the pic of the processor of my other 8088 MB, it's not as interesting tho...

This one is made by NEC, but either it's not licenced or their licence didn't include the need to put the Intel copyright on it. This is why Intel started naming their chips (ie. Pentium, 486DX). The U.S. trademark Office said you can't trademark a number (8088, 286) which allowed other companies to make unlicenced or similar performing clones and still call it a "286 computer."

Here is another pic of one of my 386 MB's, notice the name of the chip is AM386 and it's trademarked....

this was so that AMD could make their own chips you but you still knew that it was a 386 processor. Later AMD quit hanging on Intels coattails and started using their own original names.

 

[pete4r]

yes i get the point, but didnt the companies came up with their own design but just matching Intel's performance ratings? u cant possibly say that a Intel 80386 is the same chip as an AMD am386 SX-40 ??

COPYRIGHT means COPYRIGHT and it wud be so inapproprate if u see

Intel Logo on your Pentium-D chip with Copyright AMD beside it.

aren't competitors spouse to be shutting each other off even back when that chip was made?

 

[mesarectifier]

The situation as it stands at the moment is worlds away from what it was back in the 80's.

 

[jkflipflop98]

Intel owns the x86 instruction set. Everytime an AMD fanboy buys a processor, an Intel engineer gets his wings. (Saw that here a long time ago. It's too good to throw away =)

 

[Mugz]

Anyone remember the AMD X5 processor? Came right before the K6? Lovely chip. Ran one of them for years. Killed the odd Pentium with it too...

 

[mr_fnord]

http://redhill.net.au/c/c-1.html

Intel dropped the 80-prefix during the 386 years due to the trademark lawsuit referenced above. Intel's 80386 part was renamed i386 and i486 was anways the official name of the Intel 486. AMD, IBM, and others used 80486 as their name for the processor.

Until the 386, all of the clones of intel processors except NEC's were pretty much completely identical. NEC came out with a higher performance 8086 and that was some of the impetus for Intel to halt licensing of its designs to other shops. By the 486, Intel stopped licensing its designs and the 486 had to be reverse-engineered by competitors.

 

[mr_fnord]

Are you talking about a K5 or a 5x86? I had both back in the day. I somehow got a strange OEM 5x86 pull from a used compuer place. It was labeled for some bizarre clock speed, a 30Mhz bus, I think, instead of 33Mhz. I called AMD tech support because my motherboard wasn't capable of 30 Mhz, and the tech support guy said, "We have never offered that processor retail and I've never heard of it." I asked how I could make it work and he said, "Well, you can just overclock it." Straight from AMD tech support! Which is how I started overclocking with passive cooling, even. I remember I thought the heatsinks looked so ugly compared to the older non-heatsinked processors.

I had my K5 OC'd too. I think it was a PR133 I actually had running at 120, which was the speed of a PR150...

 

[mr_fnord]

386SX meant a 16 bit interface with a 32 bit chip, a way to have a 32 bit 386 dropped into a 16 bit mobo without massive redesign. 486SX is a 486DX with the coprocessor disabled, to fill a marketting niche. The 487DX was a complete 486DX, and adding one to a 486SX system would disable the original processor and replace it with the 486DX.

 

[nukemaster]

i've seen people ask about it too many times....ummmm how to overclock my AMD Celeron....

 

[Crashman]

Yeh, AMD made Intel CPU's because IBM told Intel they had to let someone do it. Two reasons I've heard were a lack of capacity and a rule at IBM to have two hardware sources for every part.

Anyway, I messed around with Cyrix 486's, and they definately felt faster than Intel, clock for clock. Cyrix had that "write back cache" which they claimed was superior, but I don't remember the details.

 

[weilin]

nice photoshop. Though the "AMD" seems too large to be believable

 

[dasickninja]

Just a little info for anyone that wants to know.

A disk or memory cache that supports the caching of writing. Data normally written to memory or to disk by the CPU is first written into the cache. During idle machine cycles, the data are written from the cache into memory or onto disk. Write back caches improve performance, because a write to the high-speed cache is faster than to normal RAM or disk.

A write back cache for disks adds a degree of risk, because the data stays in memory longer. Although it is generally no more than a few seconds until the data are written to disk, if the computer crashes or is shut down before then, the data are lost. A write back cache for memory is no more or less risky than normal memory, because all memory loses its data when the power is turned off.

 

[bridonca]

IBM insisted they needed a second source for it's x86 chips, or they would not build a machine on the x86 chip. Intel had to licence it's chips to other vendors. AMD eventually designed their own x86 clones, got sued, but won. Eventually Intel and AMD signed a cross liciencing agreement, which is why AMD has the same SSE extensions as Intel, and intel is using AMD's 64 bit technology.