Re:Pentium FDIV bug reverse-engineered which costed Intel $475M
by zoky on Friday December 13, 2024 @07:08PM
(#42413501)
Why didn’t Intel call the Pentium the 586? Because they added 486+100 on the first one they made and got 585.999999987.
Re:Pentium FDIV bug reverse-engineered which costed Intel $475M
by Dalewyn on Friday December 13, 2024 @09:25PM
(#42414147)
Amusing joke, but it actually is effectively called the 586 because the internal name is P5 and Penta from which Pentium is derived is 5.[1]
Incidentally, Pentium M to Intel Core through 16th gen Lunarrow Lake all identify as P6 ("Family 6") for 686 because they are all based off of the Pentium 3.
Re:Pentium FDIV bug reverse-engineered which costed Intel $475M
by xattt on Friday December 13, 2024 @11:03PM
(#42414582)
You’re missing the fact that Intel wanted to differentiate itself from the growing IA-32 clone chips from AMD and Cyrix. 586 couldn’t be trademarked, but Pentium could.
Re:Pentium FDIV bug reverse-engineered which costed Intel $475M
by nayuki on Friday December 13, 2024 @11:01PM
(#42414579)
Also, as per the page:
> Intel used the Pentium name instead of 586, because in 1991, it had lost a trademark dispute over the "386" trademark, when a judge ruled that the number was generic.
Re:Pentium FDIV bug reverse-engineered which costed Intel $475M
by zusammen on Saturday December 14, 2024 @05:41AM
(#42416142)
The main reason is that it’s impossible to trademark a model number.
Also, Weird Al would not have been able to make a song, “It’s All About the 586es.” It just doesn’t scan.
How many Intel engineers does it take to change a light bulb? 0.99999999