Live data from Hacker News

Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

dfarq.homeip.net

61–70 of 171 posts

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#61

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.

I remember trying to run a game, Rise of the Triad, which was built with an improved Wolfenstein engine iirc, and having it struggle on my 386 unless I made the viewport as small as possible. At which point it told me to buy a 486... well I did eventually, I guess it worked.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#62
post #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.

Without fancy JS or CSS, sites can last decades easily

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#63
I loved my 486DX2 66Mhz based IBM PS/1 (2168), which had a whopping 8MB of RAM. Not only did it really enable me to experience the fullness of PC gaming of the era, but it was the first computer I was able to install an internal modem into, and the computer I used to get SLIP dial-in access to the state university mainframe and thus to the Internet (prior I was limited to Prodigy walled garden). It was this computer that let me play early MUDs via telnet, let me play my first graphical MMORPG (Ultima Online), and and introduced me to real visual programming (Visual Basic).

To a significant degree, the 486DX2 was the primary computing platform that created the foundation I needed to learn computing at depth and enabled my later career, and really set many of the formative moments in my life. Thanks Intel, even though you suck now as a shadow of your former self you were a beast in the 90s.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#65
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?

While the speed increases weren't as dramatic, do note that even in single core speed, unlike the clocks would suggest the Ryzen 7 is much, much more than 1.23X faster than the P4. The P4 was a particularly fragile architecture, and achieved IPC on real code was typically well below 1, often closer to 0.5. The x3d variants of Ryzen have been measured at running above 3 average IPC on real, complex loads. So the single-core uplift from that P4 to a modern AMD core is about the same as from that 300MHz Pentium to the 3.8 P4, it just took 20 years, not 8. Of course, now we also have 8 times the cores.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#66
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've got an AMD branded 286 chip, from my first owned-by-me PC, bluetac-ed to the case of my home desktop PC, powered by a Ryzen something-or-other from a few years ago (with a 1060/6Gb card from a few years before that because I wasn't gaming enough to justify a new graphics card along with the other updates at the time).

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Which brings me to my pet peeve, the already slow 68020 (680ec20) at 14MHz was crippled by, even though it had a 32-bit bus, was only connected to a 16-bit RAM bus. (Chipram.)

This 16-bit memory (2 megs) is also where the framebuffer and audio lives, so the stock CPU in A1200 has to share bandwidth with display signal generation and the graphics and audio processing.

All-in-all, it meant the Amiga 1200 had only about twice the memory throughput of the Amiga 500. (About 5 megabytes/s vs about 10 megabytes/s)

If the A1200 had at least some extra 32-bit memory (it existed as a third party add-on) the CPU could have had its own uncontested memory with a troughput of about 20-40 megabyte/s.

Imagine the difference it would have made if the machine had just a little extra memory.

That's just a tiny detail. That the chipset wasn't 32-bit was another disappointment.

The bigger problem was that Commodore as a company was aimless.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#68

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 distinctly remember having a Strike Commander poster in my bedroom saying “Strike really flies on a 486 DX/2”. Fond memories indeed.

Re: Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989

#69
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 68060 is pretty good to be fair, but it never ended up being widely used and Motorola definitely saw PPC as the future.

Maybe if these theoretical new 68k Amigas became a huge market hit they could have taken the arch further and it could have remained competitive, but all the other 68k shops had already pretty much given up or moved on already (Apple was already going PPC, Sun went SPARC, NeXT gave up on their 68k hardware, Atari was exiting the computer business entirely, etc) so I don’t know that the market would have been there to support development against the vast amount of competition from both the huge x86 bastion on one hand and the multitude of RISC newcomers on the other.

Post reply on HN