> PC Magazine back in the early 90's had something that mentioned this. If I
> remember correctly it was one of the Dvorak columns. He mentioned that the
> 486SX was basically a marketing ploy by Intel to allow them to get rid of
> 486DX chips with defective Math CoPro units.
More or less there have been also 486SX with full working but
disabled FPUs, since the 486SX was also used to deploy a lower
price unit without touching the 'real' 486 price.
> As for a Math CoPro for the 486, I'm not sure I ever saw a 487 chip, but I
> always figured that they took the chips that didn't cut it as a normal
> processor but had a good Math CoPro, and sold them as 487's.
No, the 487 was just an 486DX with no modifications to the
processor it self - just (AFAIR) one of the former unused
pins now delivered a signal to disable the 486SX. So systems
with 486SX and 487 just had two complete CPUs (And double
power consumption :).
> I've no idea if this is true, but it made sense to me, since why through
> out a chip with a good processor, with you can just package it as a 486SX,
> and sell it at reduced cost. Sounds to me like everyone won. After all,
> how many people really felt the need for a Math CoProcessor in the early
> 90's?
Gee - I had a 8087 in my first XT - I never used it beside some
tests, but i HAD one - super power computer ! Yes, I wrote some
programms to play with the ability to have two concurent processors
running, but no real world app. And I still don't know for what a
FPU is usefull - Anything can still be done in integer - you just
have to think (sometimes a bit harder) about what you are about to
do.
Gruss
Hans
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Sat Nov 07 1998 - 10:55:53 GMT