iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by CalChris on Sunday April 02, 2023 @04:13PM (#35414653)

The ambitious 432 was also late, quite late. So Intel needed a simple stopgap product which was an iteration of the 8088, the 8086.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by wtallis on Sunday April 02, 2023 @04:28PM (#35414836)

The 8088 (1979) was a low-cost (reduced bus width) follow-up to the 8086 (1978). You may be thinking of the 8080 (1974) or 8085 (1976).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by CalChris on Sunday April 02, 2023 @09:21PM (#35417386)

No, I meant the 8086. The iAPX 432 project was started in 1975 but wasn't released until 1981. The 432 was late, very late, and so Intel needed a stopgap product. That was the 8086, started in 1975 and released in 1979.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by nkurz on Sunday April 02, 2023 @09:44PM (#35417557)

I'm still not following. You seem to have said above that the 8086 was an iteration of the 8088, whereas Wikipedia claims that the 8088 is instead a variant of the 8086. It also says that the 8088 came out after the 8086. Can you restate and clarify your claim? A typo seems like the most likely explanation, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by CalChris on Sunday April 02, 2023 @11:25PM (#35418191)

I'm only talking about the purpose of the 8086 as a stopgap for the very late 432. I shouldn't have mentioned the 8088.

[ Parent | on HN ]