Intel's 15 Most Unforgettable x86 CPUs
Table of contents
- 1. 8086: The First PC processor
- 2. 80286: 16 MB Of Memory, But Still 16 Bits
- 3. 386: 32-Bit and Cache Memory
- 4. The 486: An FPU And Multipliers Too
- 5. Intel Pentium: A Bothersome Bug
- 6. Pentium Pro: The First To Handle Over 4 GB Of Memory
- 7. Pentium II and III: Brothers
- 8. Celeron and Xeon: Intel Aims At The High/Low End
- 9. The Pentium III Hits 1 GHz
- 10. The Pentium 4: A Lot Of Noise Over Very Little
- 11. Pentium M: Laptops Flex Their Muscles
- 12. Pentium 4 Gets 64-bit And Another Core
- 13. The First Mobile Dual-Core
- 14. Today's Hotness: The Core 2 Duo
- 15. The Future: Nehalem, Atom, Etc.
The 8086 was the first x86 processor—Intel had already released the 4004, the 8008, the 8080 and the 8085. This 16-bit processor could manage 1 MB of memory using an external 20-bit address bus. The clock frequency chosen by IBM (4.77 MHz) was fairly low, though the processor was running at 10 MHz by the end of its career.
The first PCs used a derivative of this processor, the 8088, which had only an 8-bit (external) data bus. An interesting aside is that the control systems in the US space shuttles use 8086 processors and NASA was forced to buy some from eBay in 2002 since Intel could no longer supply them.
| Code name | N/A |
| Date released | 1979 |
| Architecture | 16 bits |
| Data bus | 16 bits |
| Address bus | 20 bits |
| Maximum memory | 1 MB |
| L1 cache | no |
| L2 cache | no |
| Clock frequency | 4.77-10 MHz |
| FSB | same as clock frequency |
| FPU | 8087 |
| SIMD | no |
| Fabrication process | 3,000 nm |
| Number of transistors | 29,000 |
| Power consumption | N/A |
| Voltage | 5 V |
| Die surface area | 16 mm² |
| Connector | 40-pin |
8
Comments
Sponsored
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
Wasn’t one of the key features of the Pentium Pro line of processors the increase in IRQs to 256 rather than the 16 of the previous generations?
In the days of virtual IRQs assigned by windows it's easy to forget the headache of trying to install multiple interface cards without running out of resources.
am I mistaken? or the Maximum memory figures are wrong? 4096MB or is it KB on 386, 486 and Pentium MMX class CPU's. and 64MB on P-II and so on.
Modern Intel CPU: P1-> P3 -> P4M -> C2D -> C2Q
Modern AMD CPU: P1(Intel) -> P3(Intel) -> K8 -> K10
Next gen CPU: Modified P1
The Pentium 1 & 3 are possibly the most widely base processor in modern computing. Even AMD's chips are based on them.
Hmm....
Interesting...AMD chips based on P3... EHEHEHEHHEHEHE
I think you need a...khhmmm...LIFE
cheers
Nice article that made me a little bit misty-eyed and nostalgic (being of the original 8086 generation)
Did a bit of a clear-out of my parts boxes not so long ago and found a couple of PPro's, a 486DX2/66, a 386SX and a 386DX. Threw them out but perhaps should have built a little shrine? ;p
Cheers.
There are some errors in the article, Pentium M Dothan had a 2.26GHz model which is not mentioned there, they had a VCore of 1.356V and a TDP of 27W, not 36W like stated here, also it's die size is 88mm2, not 87mm2, it also came as a socket 478 which was incompatible with the Pentium 4 socket 478 due to it's electrical differences.
I remember using such hardware well, mainly in the field of CAE (Computer-Aided Engineering). Despite their speed these devices never really made it into the home until the competition started heating up. Having a faster, smaller, cheaper CPU every few months was simply unheard of and mission-critical .
The operating systems relying on this hardware were also cumbersome..look at Windows 3.11 compared to say, the Mac or Amiga operating system (which not only had a WIMP interface but also had pre-emptive multi-tasking that could utilise it's custom chipset). I still remember using an Amiga to do stuff that was way ahead of the PC's capabilities..and that was in 1987. Happy days.
Alas, Wintel won and continues to hold most of the x86 market, for the same reason VHS won over Betamax: regardless of whether or not it's technically inferior, enough people were buying it. I'd say AMD has done more to further the development of x86-based hardware than Intel in recent years, which has greatly improved competition and created some innovative hardware.
I remember using such hardware well, mainly in the field of CAE (Computer-Aided Engineering). Despite their speed these devices never really made it into the home until the competition started heating up. Having a faster, smaller, cheaper CPU every few months was simply unheard of. Mission-critical environments would often rely on alternatives such as those offered by Motorola.
The operating systems relying on this hardware were also cumbersome..look at Windows 3.11 compared to say, the Mac or Amiga operating system (which not only had a WIMP interface but also had pre-emptive multi-tasking that could utilise it's custom chipset). I still remember using an Amiga to do stuff that was way ahead of the PC's capabilities..and that was in 1987. Happy days.
Alas, Wintel won and continues to hold most of the x86 market, for the same reason VHS won over Betamax: regardless of whether or not it's technically inferior, enough people were buying it. I'd say AMD has done more to further the development of x86-based hardware than Intel in recent years, which has greatly improved competition and created some innovative hardware.