Re:Don't waste money on a math coprocessor they said
by achairapart on Monday November 13, 2023 @10:13AM
(#38251078)
I read many times that 486SXs were rebranded 486DXs with a defective co-processor unit, don't really know if it was rumors or just plain fiction.
Re:Don't waste money on a math coprocessor they said
by Sohcahtoa82 on Monday November 13, 2023 @12:35PM
(#38252805)
Seems perfectly plausible. CPU binning has been being done for years. Made an 8-core chip, but one core is faulty? Disable some cores and sell it as a 6- or 4-core chip. Chip won't run at the frequency expected? Sell it as a lower-spec CPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning#Semiconductor_...
Re:Don't waste money on a math coprocessor they said
by acdha on Monday November 13, 2023 @01:24PM
(#38253376)
There is some discussion here:
http://www.os2museum.com/wp/lies-damn-lies-and-wikipedia/
My guess is that if there’s any truth to it that was early on before the process was fine-tuned. It’s hard to believe Intel would have tolerated a process producing that many errors since they could use the same die space to make more smaller chips.
Re:Don't waste money on a math coprocessor they said
by bcx5k15 on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @08:51AM
(#38276578)
probably
intel used to sell cheap core solos back in the core duo days, which were just duos where one of the cores was faulty so they disabled it.
Same with the F model (no iGPU) chips today. People have done teardowns and found that more often than not its there on the die, just disabled because its faulty.
As I recall the "co-processor" slot on those boards was another CPU slot, with an extra pin; and when filled it took over and disabled the original CPU.
Edit: later 486SX may not have had FPU: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/12109/wer...