Even though they are both 16 bits data buses, the 386SX was a much more practical CPU than the 286 due to the introduction of virtual 8086 mode. The 286 had a huge design flaw where you couldn't switch back from protected mode (where extended memory can be accessed) without resetting the CPU, which incurred a significant performance hit. The virtual 8086 mode of the 386 solved that, by allowing a memory manager program (ex: EMM386) to run in protected mode and map chunks of extended memory in the real mode address space (first 1024K). This led to the wonderful era of UMBs, HMA and EMS emulation in MS-DOS 5.0+.
That was a flaw only in the light things developed. When Intel started to develop 286 they did not see the huge success of 8088 and the need for things like extended memory. They saw the real mode as a legacy and boot mode. Once you went to protected mode there was no need to go back. I think modern 64 Bit CPUs have same thing: once you go from legacy (32 bit) mode to long (64 bit) more you cannot go back. Nobody calls that a design error as there is no need to go back. You could do UMBs with 286 also using third party software that utilized the memory management of the motherboard. I did that on 386 as there were some benefits like not needing the V86 mode and being able to load Himem.sys to UMBs. Often motherboards simply ignored the RAM in 640K..1M. It just was not used as the are was reserved for video memory and ROM. Some allowed to remap it to the top of memory but often only if you had just 1 MB memory. The software allowed to make that RAM visible.
Had a 16mhz 386SX and I cannot overstate how gimped it was compared to a real 386 - forget running Doom on it - even set to minimum screen size and with pixel size doubled (so it's basically rendering something like 20x15 pixels) the framerate was still in single digits.
@StringerNews1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_386SLC Sorry, brother. Intel licensed, not Cyrix. Now, the IBM 486 does appear to be licensed from Cyrix. I am not saying that IBM did not purchase any 386 CPUs from Intel, I am quite sure they did.
StringerNews1 I bow to the master that knows all. They did eventually license to them, years later after losing their lawsuits against them. Me wonders why they were suing them.... over their 386 counterparts, that is.
Found a 486SX-25 PC in my local tip today as it happens. And it works! I do have a couple of DX CPUs sitting around somewhere so going to try them out in the system when I get some time next week.
Never knew SX vs DX was related to the datapath on the 386 line, though it was like the 486 - the lack of a math coprocessor. Learned one retro tidbit today as well.
486 was the first that had integrated coprocessor. Before that it was a separate one and very few bought it. 386 supported 287 and 387 (later 387DX). 386SX supported 387SX. There was also differences in memory supported. 386DX supported 4 GB, 386SX just 16 MB. 4 GB was unimaginably much in 1985, it would have been almost two million dollars.
@@okaro6595 The memory support was because of this databath. The 386sx had a 16 bit databus and 24-bit address bus. So while the dx could adress 2^32 as in 4GB, the sx could support 2^24 which is as you said 16MB. A regular 386 user had probably around 2MB back in the day. But the first time I bought a pc, i had amiga 500, c64 and vic 20 before that, I got a 486 pc and with that sx vs dx only related to the lack of math coprocessor. so a 486sx had a 32 bit datapath, just as the 486dx. that is why I by error thought it applied to the 386 as well.
Yeah I remember this stuff. After a few years it became obvious to us builders that the CPU and motherboard would always be inexorably linked, so upgrading CPUs was never going to be practical...
Well it's not emphasizing 386 vs 286. By providing a proper MMU and rings 386 allow basically to have a proper UNIX-like system with efficient memory management and security, while all previous processors, including 286, didn't really allow that. Before 386 UNIXen on PC couldn't be compared to UNIX on VAXen or 68k+MMU.
Quick video suggestion, Slot 1 Pentium ii/iii processors over their socket brothers, why were they cartridges instead of actual CPU slots? Also the MMX technology, the 586 and Cyrix's demise.
I had 486 dx2 66mhz back in the day used to wind up my mate who only had a sx 25mhz. We both got really angry when we found out that both our machines would not run quake.
I remember running quake on my dx2-66 VESA LB HDD controller + 2meg VESA Video card + 16megs of ram. (yes that ram cost me over 800 at the time). It ran 3 screen sizes from the minimum! but it ran!
Hmm. C&C ran on 386 fairly well. I did have 387 math co-processor at the time though - not sure if that might be the cause of it not working on your 486SX.
My first pc was a 386SX (with a massive 4 MB ram!) and it blew my mind verses the 286s and others I'd dabbled with beforehand. But it couldn't handle Doom in anything beyond a postage stamp window so of course i had to upgrade then to a 486DX2 @ 66 MHz.
Yeah playing Doom 2 last level against the last boss Icon of Sin was hell. Slow down to perhaps a few frames if I was lucky on my 486SX 25. Then one my friends gets a P75 and that level becomes a lot better.
I swear to this day that level is impossible without cheats. I plan on finding out though, now that I have a machine capable lol. Oddly, I too played it on a 486SX. 4MB Ram?
@@timking3587 I had a 120MB HDD and single speed CD. You sure your HDD was only 20? My old 386DX had 60MBHDD and even with that, I had DOS, Windows, and only room for 1 major game (X-Wing for example), so I used to pretty much choose which game I'd play for a month before i got bored, uninstalled it, to make room for another lol. Oh god, just remembered playing around with DOS based "Disk doublers" too which would compress data when not in use to "double" the HDD space.
@@005AGIMA yeah the hdd of 20mb was on the Amstrad 1512. Got mixed up. Thats the case I can't remember the actual size of the hdd on the SX25. Looking around on the web must of been 40-60mb. What i do remember ie going around to my uncle's and being amazed he had 120mb hdd on his dx66.
I actually have a 486SX on display above my bedroom PC. I pulled it from a bad motherboard while working in a repair shop. Now I've got it sitting around until I can either do something with it or show off a CPU older than I am.
Nice! Idea for a subject: Intel's infamous floating point bug in some Pentium Processors in the mid-90's.. I ended up with such a processor, and had it exchanged.. Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
Yes, but only using segmentation. Linear addressing could only span16 bits (the width of the general registers) without programming tricks, just as with the 8086.
@@sundhaug92 DOS was limited to 1 MB (640 KB for normal memory) but the latter memory could be used as extended memory. Later they developed DOS Extenders that could access larger memory. Borland Pascal 7.0 allowed with minimal changes creating DOS programs that supported 16 MB.
Never could figure out why Intel's marketing people decided to call the 16 bit version of their first 32 bit chip the 80386SX instead of just the 80388, by way of analogy with the original x86 CPU chips. And then just to confuse things, they made "SX" not at all analogous on the 80486 line, as mentioned in the video . . . .
388 would have made sense only if it had had 8 bit data path. I have heard that the SX originally meant sixteen. Of course the DX then makes little sense.
@@okaro6595 . . . And 386 doesn't make much sense either, viewed that way, since the full service version (not the SX) had a 32 bit data bath. So might as well go with the convention of #88 having half the data width of #86. And then on the 486 they broke the guideline of SX meaning sixteen anyway.
We had a 25mhz 486 sx as out first home computer when I was young. Mainly for homework. So frustrating though as it wouldn’t run certain games back in the day. That really put me off pc gaming. When ps1 came out that was it for me, console gaming all the way.
Simon Barnett The problem with 486SX was that most models were only 25 Mhz, the unlicensed UMC Super40 clones were quite speedy from what I saw on a test here on youtube. And NO 486, DX or SX can really run Quake well, it was a Pentium game, the fastest 486 ran it at just 10 fps
Michal Zušťák True but i wasn't even able to get that far. as the game loaded an error would appear saying no maths co-processor / floating point unit can't be found (cant remember exact text).
Without looking I seem to remember one had a maths coprocessor and the other didn't. Ahh I'll enjoy watching this video. Remember the die hards when you're super geek famous :D
What's the BEST DOS hardware you can get, period? I've got a spare Core P3 case and want to build a 486 or Pentium 1 that can run every DOS game natively in DOS without emulation, perfect clock, speed, highest graphics settings etc.. (all the bells and whistles, Roland external sound?) Just.... assemble the list for me and I'll make this real :) I need it for the tech cave.
@@okaro6595 no, SX was cheaper because of the slower clock rate, no FPU (sold separately) and reduced bus width (16 instead of 32). RAM options were up to the dealer (maxing out at 16MB)
No, at that time CPUs had caches so the CPU fetched data to the cache 64 bits a time (IIRC it did four fetches to fetch 32 bytes). Once the data was in the cache it was processed 32 bits a time.
Actually.... I swear mine said DX33 on the front, but looking it up, the tank shaped Amstrad 2386 (the model I had) ran at 20Mhz. So there ya go :/ Maybe it was the IBM that said 33? Meh. Looking at pictures of the Amstrad PC2386, some said "PC2386/65" but they still ran at 20MHz. So perhaps the number at the end meant something else....like the number of seconds it would take doom to fire the shotgun perhaps?
Pentiums had 32 bit *registers* that it did actual calculations with, yes, but a 64 bit bus helped overcome the fact that memory had been so much slower than CPU's for quite some time.
the SX line was the biggest scam ever. It was basically just a broken DX chip but sold as a cheaper alternative. But then, when the user realized just how horrible the SX performance was compared to a DX, they would then go out and buy a math coprocessor, which was just a DX chip with a bit of rebranding. So in the end, they spent more to get DX level power than if they would have just bought a DX chip in the first place.
Salty yeah i like it when people say it like 80. 88., and 80. 86. instead of 8. 0. 8. 8 , and 8. 0. 8. 6 its so cringy. its the same when he says 2. 8. 6 and 3. 8. 6. it should be 2. 86, and 3. 86 as it just rolls off the toung easier, and just sounds better.
Carter Baker The word flags are usually used at the machine code/asm-level, they are flip-flops or latches at the hardware level. Counters can increment (add 1), but you need to build a so called _full adder_ (using a few gates) to do a general addition in hardware. A full adder calculates A+B+carry and gives Sum+carry out. The add/sub function of an 8/16/32/64-bit ALU is (essentially) cascaded full adders.
louis tournas Divison and multiplication are done much as we do, on paper, only very much faster. This is possible because a CPUs internal circuitry can also compare numbers and jump conditionally based on that. It can also shift numbers to the left or right, among other things (i.e. not only add).
@@saratov99 Nope they are Swedes and Norwegians who don't go bankrupt if the need medical care...Fox tries to confuse people into thinking socialism is the same as communism!
Sweden is slowly fasing out its social programs and its super capitalistic on business level. Norway live of oil and gas like arabs, it was poorest country in Europe before that. And european countries are subsidised heavily since the end of WW2 by USA. Should USA leave them to fend for themselfs by closing it's market and not protecting them, european economies will collapse and definitely won't be handouts for lazy bums and 3rd world invaders.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
Even though they are both 16 bits data buses, the 386SX was a much more practical CPU than the 286 due to the introduction of virtual 8086 mode. The 286 had a huge design flaw where you couldn't switch back from protected mode (where extended memory can be accessed) without resetting the CPU, which incurred a significant performance hit. The virtual 8086 mode of the 386 solved that, by allowing a memory manager program (ex: EMM386) to run in protected mode and map chunks of extended memory in the real mode address space (first 1024K). This led to the wonderful era of UMBs, HMA and EMS emulation in MS-DOS 5.0+.
That was a flaw only in the light things developed. When Intel started to develop 286 they did not see the huge success of 8088 and the need for things like extended memory. They saw the real mode as a legacy and boot mode. Once you went to protected mode there was no need to go back.
I think modern 64 Bit CPUs have same thing: once you go from legacy (32 bit) mode to long (64 bit) more you cannot go back. Nobody calls that a design error as there is no need to go back.
You could do UMBs with 286 also using third party software that utilized the memory management of the motherboard. I did that on 386 as there were some benefits like not needing the V86 mode and being able to load Himem.sys to UMBs.
Often motherboards simply ignored the RAM in 640K..1M. It just was not used as the are was reserved for video memory and ROM. Some allowed to remap it to the top of memory but often only if you had just 1 MB memory. The software allowed to make that RAM visible.
Had a 16mhz 386SX and I cannot overstate how gimped it was compared to a real 386 - forget running Doom on it - even set to minimum screen size and with pixel size doubled (so it's basically rendering something like 20x15 pixels) the framerate was still in single digits.
Our family's first system was a 386 DX 33 MHz, and I really never knew until today what, exactly, the DX referred to.
So thanks!
Mentions Intel creating the 386 to avoid other companies selling it. 2:15 - shows an AMD 386 with a Cyrix 387 coprocessor. :-D
Well, it's AMD 386 on the picture. Not an intel.
@StringerNews1 Actually, they were not licensed to any 3rd party OEMs, except for IBM. And then those could only be sold in IBM PCs.
@StringerNews1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_386SLC
Sorry, brother. Intel licensed, not Cyrix. Now, the IBM 486 does appear to be licensed from Cyrix.
I am not saying that IBM did not purchase any 386 CPUs from Intel, I am quite sure they did.
StringerNews1 I bow to the master that knows all.
They did eventually license to them, years later after losing their lawsuits against them. Me wonders why they were suing them.... over their 386 counterparts, that is.
Love this new series. Keep them comming.
Found a 486SX-25 PC in my local tip today as it happens. And it works! I do have a couple of DX CPUs sitting around somewhere so going to try them out in the system when I get some time next week.
neat! hello, its 2 years into the future. did you try out those DX processors?
Never knew SX vs DX was related to the datapath on the 386 line, though it was like the 486 - the lack of a math coprocessor. Learned one retro tidbit today as well.
486 was the first that had integrated coprocessor. Before that it was a separate one and very few bought it. 386 supported 287 and 387 (later 387DX). 386SX supported 387SX.
There was also differences in memory supported. 386DX supported 4 GB, 386SX just 16 MB. 4 GB was unimaginably much in 1985, it would have been almost two million dollars.
@@okaro6595 The memory support was because of this databath. The 386sx had a 16 bit databus and 24-bit address bus. So while the dx could adress 2^32 as in 4GB, the sx could support 2^24 which is as you said 16MB. A regular 386 user had probably around 2MB back in the day.
But the first time I bought a pc, i had amiga 500, c64 and vic 20 before that, I got a 486 pc and with that sx vs dx only related to the lack of math coprocessor. so a 486sx had a 32 bit datapath, just as the 486dx. that is why I by error thought it applied to the 386 as well.
First pc in 94 was a 486sx33. Loved it. Still have it.
I'm finding this series very interesting. I hope you cover non-x86 processors too.
+Gooberslot In all likely hood, yes, I plan to at some point
@@Nostalgianerd
Cover Motorola 68000 and PowerPC chips of the era!!!
My 486 MB could support the Pentium Overdrive. And I loved it! Got lots of speed improvements without spending a lot of $$$ on a new MB and RAM.
Yeah I remember this stuff. After a few years it became obvious to us builders that the CPU and motherboard would always be inexorably linked, so upgrading CPUs was never going to be practical...
Enter AMD and ryzen. 5 years of cpu upgrades same motherboard
Well it's not emphasizing 386 vs 286. By providing a proper MMU and rings 386 allow basically to have a proper UNIX-like system with efficient memory management and security, while all previous processors, including 286, didn't really allow that. Before 386 UNIXen on PC couldn't be compared to UNIX on VAXen or 68k+MMU.
Quick video suggestion, Slot 1 Pentium ii/iii processors over their socket brothers, why were they cartridges instead of actual CPU slots?
Also the MMX technology, the 586 and Cyrix's demise.
+Plague Doctor I'll definitely be covering the latter. Good shout on the Pentium 2 sockets.
Nostalgia Nerd Thanks man.
I had 486 dx2 66mhz back in the day used to wind up my mate who only had a sx 25mhz. We both got really angry when we found out that both our machines would not run quake.
+Rockythefishman Man a DX2 66 hammers a pathetic SX25... He must have been devastated.
i had same comp, but rather than wanting to play quake, i could not run Command & Conquer, it always crashed almost after launching the game lol
I remember running quake on my dx2-66 VESA LB HDD controller + 2meg VESA Video card + 16megs of ram. (yes that ram cost me over 800 at the time). It ran 3 screen sizes from the minimum! but it ran!
Hmm. C&C ran on 386 fairly well. I did have 387 math co-processor at the time though - not sure if that might be the cause of it not working on your 486SX.
@@Nostalgianerd I can picture the teasing and mockery now. 80s/90s kids had no mercy lol.
My first real PC was a 486SX running @ a whopping 25Mhz!
Rando1975 me 486 DX2 66MHZ
My too it was an ibm ps/1 with 171mb hdd
My first pc was a 386SX (with a massive 4 MB ram!) and it blew my mind verses the 286s and others I'd dabbled with beforehand. But it couldn't handle Doom in anything beyond a postage stamp window so of course i had to upgrade then to a 486DX2 @ 66 MHz.
Reminded me how i abused Moslowiz to run games slower on fast CPUs when the game speed was based on the CPU speed without limit.
Yeah playing Doom 2 last level against the last boss Icon of Sin was hell. Slow down to perhaps a few frames if I was lucky on my 486SX 25. Then one my friends gets a P75 and that level becomes a lot better.
I swear to this day that level is impossible without cheats. I plan on finding out though, now that I have a machine capable lol. Oddly, I too played it on a 486SX. 4MB Ram?
@@005AGIMA yep 4mb ram. I think only had 20mb hdd and a single speed CD-ROM. 😂
@@timking3587 I had a 120MB HDD and single speed CD. You sure your HDD was only 20? My old 386DX had 60MBHDD and even with that, I had DOS, Windows, and only room for 1 major game (X-Wing for example), so I used to pretty much choose which game I'd play for a month before i got bored, uninstalled it, to make room for another lol. Oh god, just remembered playing around with DOS based "Disk doublers" too which would compress data when not in use to "double" the HDD space.
@@005AGIMA yeah the hdd of 20mb was on the Amstrad 1512. Got mixed up. Thats the case I can't remember the actual size of the hdd on the SX25. Looking around on the web must of been 40-60mb. What i do remember ie going around to my uncle's and being amazed he had 120mb hdd on his dx66.
Short and sweet video. I liked it!
As a kind of hobby I look for electronics in dumpsters and curbside stuff. Found two Intel i486 DX CPUs to-day, but have no way of testing them!
I actually have a 486SX on display above my bedroom PC. I pulled it from a bad motherboard while working in a repair shop. Now I've got it sitting around until I can either do something with it or show off a CPU older than I am.
DX, SX, BX (chipset), CX (Cyrix prefix), FX, GX (MediaGX), KX (VIA Athlon chipset), MX (Cyrix 6x86MX), NX (NexGen), RX Radeon, TX (chipset), VX (unbranded Super 7 chipset), etc. Man loves X.
SX processor is a 80486 without the FPU which has to be added in and the DX is a full blown processor with the built in FPU.
Very few added a coprocessor later. The 487SX was actually almost identical to 486DX. If you inserted one the 486SX was disabled.
I have a Tandy 3200. It came as a 486/DX and it had a Pentium ODP socket. Putting that ODP, doubled that machine's speed. I still have it.
Good but too short. Barely finished making a cuppa and sat down, yeah the video is done already :D
Nice! Idea for a subject: Intel's infamous floating point bug in some Pentium Processors in the mid-90's.. I ended up with such a processor, and had it exchanged.. Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
+Casual Commodore 64 Completely forgot about that actually. Good shout!
The memory address width for the 80286 was 24 bits.
Yes, but only using segmentation. Linear addressing could only span16 bits (the width of the general registers) without programming tricks, just as with the 8086.
@@herrfriberger5 Also, on PC-compatible system, it'd still be limited to 20-bits total by default
@@sundhaug92 DOS was limited to 1 MB (640 KB for normal memory) but the latter memory could be used as extended memory. Later they developed DOS Extenders that could access larger memory. Borland Pascal 7.0 allowed with minimal changes creating DOS programs that supported 16 MB.
Never could figure out why Intel's marketing people decided to call the 16 bit version of their first 32 bit chip the 80386SX instead of just the 80388, by way of analogy with the original x86 CPU chips. And then just to confuse things, they made "SX" not at all analogous on the 80486 line, as mentioned in the video . . . .
388 would have made sense only if it had had 8 bit data path. I have heard that the SX originally meant sixteen. Of course the DX then makes little sense.
@@okaro6595 . . . And 386 doesn't make much sense either, viewed that way, since the full service version (not the SX) had a 32 bit data bath. So might as well go with the convention of #88 having half the data width of #86. And then on the 486 they broke the guideline of SX meaning sixteen anyway.
the sx ment it had a disabled math co processor . it was a marketing move to sell faulty math co processor . the dx had a math co processor.
also there was the 486dx 75 and the 486 dx100 of witch used to replace i’m my tandy 4825sx computer in 1992 that had the 486sx25.
We had a 25mhz 486 sx as out first home computer when I was young. Mainly for homework. So frustrating though as it wouldn’t run certain games back in the day. That really put me off pc gaming. When ps1 came out that was it for me, console gaming all the way.
Could you make a video on the best dos commands/shortcuts to use?
+fandenivoldsk I can, and I believe I shall
+Nostalgia Nerd Excellent news
Please do!!
"format c:" , it's all you need to know =P
you forgot "/y"
I still have an working 486SX 25MHz laptop for DOS gaming on the go. Fast as lightning!
Woah, video ended way too soon. These videos sure were shorter back when you made this one. Felt rushed and lacked real detail.
Haha! I remember 486SXs Me and my friend used to call them 486SUX.
It's true. I couldn't play quake on mine because it didn't have a floating point coprocessor :D
Simon Barnett The problem with 486SX was that most models were only 25 Mhz, the unlicensed UMC Super40 clones were quite speedy from what I saw on a test here on youtube. And NO 486, DX or SX can really run Quake well, it was a Pentium game, the fastest 486 ran it at just 10 fps
Michal Zušťák True but i wasn't even able to get that far. as the game loaded an error would appear saying no maths co-processor / floating point unit can't be found (cant remember exact text).
So you can say the Celeron is a Pentium II SX
Without looking I seem to remember one had a maths coprocessor and the other didn't. Ahh I'll enjoy watching this video. Remember the die hards when you're super geek famous :D
What's the BEST DOS hardware you can get, period? I've got a spare Core P3 case and want to build a 486 or Pentium 1 that can run every DOS game natively in DOS without emulation, perfect clock, speed, highest graphics settings etc.. (all the bells and whistles, Roland external sound?) Just.... assemble the list for me and I'll make this real :) I need it for the tech cave.
This is why we called them the "SuX" chips...
That compaq you have (from the doom beta video), if its the model I'm thinking of, has support for the overdrive chips.
Doesn't have a zif socket though. This upsets me
Nostalgia Nerd But it doesn't have to have a ZIF socket to accept the overdrive.
Nostalgia Nerd Just line it up, in the correct pin orientation, and insert.
Had a 486SX25. Not a bad computer, but the math co-processor was outrageously priced.
Rock Snot because it was just an 486dx
Great stuff
wasn't Intel sued for operating a monopoly and had to grant access to the 386sx to AMD via patents.
They were. But it didn't matter, because by the time AMD was able to sell the chips, 386s were mostly obsolete
I liked the sx , 2 sims at a time instead of 4
so basically, they, again, reduced the data path to lower bit rates so as to accommodate contemporary board designs.
The sticker on the fan @3:05 looks like it says 💩
damn ebay, why is it so hard to find a 386sx 16mhz with 4 megs of ram and a 40meg hard drive at a decent price ...... why????
SX machines were sold with 2 MB. That was the whole point. Sure later many, including me upgraded.
@@okaro6595 no, SX was cheaper because of the slower clock rate, no FPU (sold separately) and reduced bus width (16 instead of 32). RAM options were up to the dealer (maxing out at 16MB)
Good but short , you really didn't touch on the real difference in applications of same processors. You could have done it few minutes longer :)
Wait a minute... So the Pentium had a 64 bit days path, does that mean it was a 64 bit chip?
No, even though the Pro could address 36 bits of memory, both are 32-bit processors
No, at that time CPUs had caches so the CPU fetched data to the cache 64 bits a time (IIRC it did four fetches to fetch 32 bytes). Once the data was in the cache it was processed 32 bits a time.
I had an Amstrad 386 DX 33 and "upgraded" to an IBM 486 SX 25. Doom ran...."slightly" better. ...enter the ATARI JAGUAR :D
Actually.... I swear mine said DX33 on the front, but looking it up, the tank shaped Amstrad 2386 (the model I had) ran at 20Mhz. So there ya go :/ Maybe it was the IBM that said 33? Meh. Looking at pictures of the Amstrad PC2386, some said "PC2386/65" but they still ran at 20MHz. So perhaps the number at the end meant something else....like the number of seconds it would take doom to fire the shotgun perhaps?
I use the Kingston 486 DX4
Wait a minute...I thought Pentiums were 32-bit not 64?
Pentiums had 32 bit *registers* that it did actual calculations with, yes, but a 64 bit bus helped overcome the fact that memory had been so much slower than CPU's for quite some time.
4km
Actually it was Intel memory
the SX line was the biggest scam ever. It was basically just a broken DX chip but sold as a cheaper alternative. But then, when the user realized just how horrible the SX performance was compared to a DX, they would then go out and buy a math coprocessor, which was just a DX chip with a bit of rebranding. So in the end, they spent more to get DX level power than if they would have just bought a DX chip in the first place.
raydeen2k it depends. The 486 sx was like the way you describe, but not the 386 sx, which was a 16 bit chip, but better.
8-0-8-8 and 8-0-8-6 is really clunky to say and hear, i think i prefer people calling it "eighty eighty eight" and "eighty eighty six"
+Salty I prefer to make a Clunk.
ah fair enough, you do you man
or eight thousand eighty eight/six
Salty yeah i like it when people say it like 80. 88., and 80. 86. instead of 8. 0. 8. 8 , and 8. 0. 8. 6 its so cringy.
its the same when he says 2. 8. 6 and 3. 8. 6. it should be 2. 86, and 3. 86 as it just rolls off the toung easier, and just sounds better.
"enigma" ? strange motherboard
21k
Resolution it's mean reservoir as is as isn't
Woah! So AMD has been making microchips longer than Intel!?!? 🤯
AMD was incorporated in 1969, Intel in 1972
HHMMMM, chips!
Simply awesome how AMD reverse engineered these.
AMD was a licensed second source. Intel had given it the right to the 386 micro code.
@@okaro6595 true from 8086/8088 to 286, but with 386, they had to reverse engineer that.
People don't realise cpus at a logic level can only add.
If you mean the gate and FET levels, it can't even add (only invert bits, do logical AND or OR on them, store them for a few ms, or transfer them).
+Sven Ekeberg I level up. how it works registers, counters, and flags.
Carter Baker The word flags are usually used at the machine code/asm-level, they are flip-flops or latches at the hardware level. Counters can increment (add 1), but you need to build a so called _full adder_ (using a few gates) to do a general addition in hardware. A full adder calculates A+B+carry and gives Sum+carry out. The add/sub function of an 8/16/32/64-bit ALU is (essentially) cascaded full adders.
Then how are division and multiplication done?
louis tournas
Divison and multiplication are done much as we do, on paper, only very much faster. This is possible because a CPUs internal circuitry can also compare numbers and jump conditionally based on that. It can also shift numbers to the left or right, among other things (i.e. not only add).
RISC
This got confusing.
Sx=sucks
Dx=deluxe
:)
my 1st cpu was a 25Mhz 486sx. SX I think ment sucks.
It is sort of like the 6000SUX in Robocop. An American tradition.
Gary Carone as long as you didn't rendered, used CAD or played doom it really didn't matter
matsv201 Doom did not use the FPU.
Michal Zušťák True... of cause i was thinking quake, not doom.. but got confused.
matsv201 Yeah and Quake was unplayable on any 486. Every 486 "sucks" by that criteria.
>Lessens data path to 32-bit
>Calls it "overdrive"
Yer capitalists
meanwhile socialists are in line for toilet paper.
@@saratov99 Nope they are Swedes and Norwegians who don't go bankrupt if the need medical care...Fox tries to confuse people into thinking socialism is the same as communism!
Sweden is slowly fasing out its social programs and its super capitalistic on business level. Norway live of oil and gas like arabs, it was poorest country in Europe before that. And european countries are subsidised heavily since the end of WW2 by USA. Should USA leave them to fend for themselfs by closing it's market and not protecting them, european economies will collapse and definitely won't be handouts for lazy bums and 3rd world invaders.
sx pronounced sucks.
that means dx pronounced dicks? :D
This provides no information other than marketing propaganda.