OT, but info needed: RAM uprade

From: Tim Hotze <tim_at_thereviewguide.com>
Date: Tue Dec 29 03:10:03 1998

> Your way off. First off intel is the process leader. But when you require
> everything to be 16bits wide like memory, address latches, byte/word logic
> and other nifty things to get to 16bit wide the cost goes up for the system.
> the cost to produce the 8088 and the 8086 was nearly the same save for the
> 8088 was cheaper due to volumes and not technology.

Now I'm starting to see your point. But I hold my case that it was
a sluggish performer, and at the time, there were definately better
processors to choose from, if you look at the overall resulting
system.

> very true. I was running a 8086/8mhz Multibus based system with 512k of
> ram and a 5mb hard disk and 1mb 8" floppies when the IBM PC was introduced.
> Needless to say I was appalled at it's terminally poor performance.

Yeah, but that was a killer system! But think if that had held true
to this day. People would be bragging about thier 'new' 75MHz
Pentiums!

 
> nope. The 486 executed instruction in fewer cycles and had several
> features that made it faster internally for the same clock speed as a 386.

But it was poorly market positioned. Seriously, there seriously
wasn't anything in the lower end (IE $2000 home systems) of 32-bit
PC computing that a 386 DX/33 couldn't do that a 486SX/25 or so
could. Sure, you'd get better performance and you could upgrade
to a DX (as I did), but it might not have been the choice for all
users.

 
> the celeron is a pentium! it's more integrated with the onboard cache
> but it's also a fixed configuration so expanding it is harder.

A Pentium as in a Pentium or a PII? If I Understand Correctly
(IIUC), it's just a PII with no external casing, and either no cache
or 128K cache. Even SMP is supported. (Dual Celeron 333...
nice.... cheap, for a 333MHz SMP system...)

> Also they were trying to get the x86 into the other non PC markets.

Which, unfortunately, failed for the most part. There are a number
of embedded solutions to this day, but for the most part for places
that the average user usually assoicates with Intel Inside, a non-PC
computer isn't one of them.
 
> The dynamics of the microprocessor market is more complex than you think.
> If MIPS was so good it would ahve pushed out x86. Alpha is a 64bit cpu
> targetted at high end systems and the MicroVAX (32bit) was already well
> established and faster than 386/486.

Yeah, but they started to late. And for the mid-range server
market, where you can get Alpha systems, they're not doing to
well. But MIPS are becoming common... they power the fastest of
Windows CE HP/C's, the ultra-fast N64 (which, BTW, only has
4MB RAM but can easily outperform any PII 450 with a 90MHz
video card and 128MB RAM, if you look at realtime 3D).
 
> Yep! Now all your boards don't work in the new machine and most of the
> older PCI ones don't behave either.
> What will merced run... pentium emulator so there is software for it.

Maybe it'll be hardware. But anyway, it might fail, but I'd doubt it.
You've got to admit that the time is well past ripe for 64-bit to take
over for the server market. Sure, the Alpha might be better, but
PHB's prevent lots of good non-Intel solutions (this, of course,
being why you've got lots and lots of PC's with their huge memory
requirements, etc.)

But for a server, current add-on cards won't really be too much of a
hastle.
> Allison
Tim
Received on Tue Dec 29 1998 - 03:10:03 GMT