Live data from Hacker News

Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

dfarq.homeip.net

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#51
post #18
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My classmate kept his Amiga 1200 a bit longer! ...eventually he got a PC with Pentium 60 MHz.

Yeah, there were holdouts of course but the DX/2 really seems like the breaking point. (Also, a Pentium 60 is barely faster than a DX/2 66 at many tasks — it is a Bad Processor — but that’s another conversation ;)

Many tasks perhaps, but running Quake was not one of them.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#52

The 486 and https://www.delorie.com/djgpp/history.html changed everything. Suddenly, it was possible to imagine running advanced software on a PC, and not have to spend 25,000 USD on a workstation.

Amazing to see a webpage "Updated Dec 1998" still up, running and displaying correctly.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#53
post #34

I've got one sitting on the shelf above my desk, a 33 Mhz dx, I don't even remember what machine it came out of.

I too have one sitting on my desk, 486DX2 66Mhz. I've had it for probably 25 years now, bringing it from job to job like the magical lost artifact it is. I remember how much more capable it was for playing Doom and Descent than the 33Mhz, or heaven forbid the SX. Of course shortly after the Pentium came out and blew everything away. The good 'ol days of giant Gateway 2000 towers.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#54
post #17

How was the person incorrect that speed increases won't continue forever? Pentium 4 was 3.8GHz and Ryzen 7 has 4.7Ghz some 20 odd years later?

A switch from the exponential regime to something immensely slower was a qualitative change. The difference is so vast that it's completely reasonable to say that clock speeds haven't changed a single bit since 2006 or so (and even for raw ops/s speeds, which have improved much more, it's debatable).

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#55
post #30
post #17

How was the person incorrect that speed increases won't continue forever? Pentium 4 was 3.8GHz and Ryzen 7 has 4.7Ghz some 20 odd years later?

Clock speeds used to be going up in a straight line (the normal "interpretation" of Moore's law) - but once the P4 hit a (kind of useless 3.8GHz) we leveled off for decades.

(To make it clear, straight line on a log scale. Exponential on a linear scale.)

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#56
post #51
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there were holdouts of course but the DX/2 really seems like the breaking point. (Also, a Pentium 60 is barely faster than a DX/2 66 at many tasks — it is a Bad Processor — but that’s another conversation ;)

Many tasks perhaps, but running Quake was not one of them.

Yeah, it does alright and is a significant difference to a DX/2, but Quake came out in ’96 and the P60 came out as a super expensive workstation class CPU in ’93. If you were a gamer in ’96 it is unlikely you were rocking a P60 because it was not ever good value for money.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#57
For me, the 486 was right between my (actually my Dad's) first computer, a 386, and my first personal computer (Pentium MMX). During those couple of years my friends had 486s and I was always jealous. I used to drool at the Best Buy catalog that came every Sunday in the mail.

Nowadays, 486 computers are getting rare and relatively expensive. CPUs themselves are 25, 30, 40, sometimes 50 bucks on eBay. Whole working systems are in the low hundreds, and fully working 486 laptops can fetch 400 or 500 bucks.

sigh

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I noted in my other comment (1), in 1985 Amiga OCS bitplane graphics (separate each bits of a pixel index into separate areas) was a huge boon in 2d capability since it lowered bandwidth to 6/8ths but made 3d rendering a major pain in the ass. The Aga chipset of the 1200/4000 stupidly only added 2 more bitplanes. The CD32 chip actually had byte-per-pixel (chunky) graphics modes but the omission from the 1200 was f…

> The Aga chipset of the 1200/4000 stupidly only added 2 more bitplanes. The CD32 chip actually had byte-per-pixel (chunky) graphics modes but the omission from the 1200 was fatal. The intention was good, but the Akiko chip was functionally almost useless. It was soon surpassed by CPU chunky to planar algorithms. I don't think it was ever even used in any serious way by any released games (though it might have been u…

Ah, I was under the impression that it had a native chunky mode but it was a built-in C2P routine? Anyhow, seems it was useful (1) when running on stock CD32's but not in conjunction with faster machines.

1: https://forum.amiga.org/index.php?topic=51616.msg544232#msg5...

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#59

The 486 killer app was DOOM. It was butter-smooth at 20 fps if you also had a VLB graphic card. The 486 DX2 66MHz was the target platform for gaming during almost two years (1992-1994). That was an huge achievement back in the days to be at the top that long.

I wonder, I wonder where one could find a good book about the software architecture of that game… oh, well

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#60
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CD32 chip actually had byte-per-pixel (chunky) graphics modes but the omission from the 1200 was fatal. I agree. Unfortunately, even with chunky graphics and/or 3D foresight, 68k would still have been a dead end and Commodore would still have been mismanaged into death. It’s fun to dream though…

Was it necessarily a dead end? Considering the ways Intel and later AMD managed to upgrade/re-invent x86 that until x64 still retained so much of the x86 instruction encoding/heritage (heck, even x64 retains some of the instruction encoding characteristics). Had the Amiga retained relevance for longer and without a push for PowerPC I don't see a reason why 68k wouldn't have been extended. Heck the FPGA Apollo 68080 w…

The argument is that 68k is "CISCier" than x86, the addressing modes in particular, so making a performant modern out-of-order superscaler core that uses it would be harder than x86.
Post reply on HN