Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Intel Processors
Summary: Not transistors ...
Keywords: i486
Message-ID: <4005@rtifs1.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 90 10:56:32 GMT
References: <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma> <56214@microsoft.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 18

In article <56214@microsoft.UUCP>, t-dona@microsoft.UUCP (Don AINGWORTH) writes:
> In article <1990Jul30.143353.25913@usenet@kadsma> pajerek@kadsma.UUCP (Donald Pajerek) writes:
> >Why is the 80486 chip always referred to as the i486?
> >Is this some sort of protocol that Intel wants the world to observe?
> 
> I had the same question awhile ago, and when I asked someone he said it had
> to do with the million + chips: that when an intel had in i before its
> number, that meant that it had a million transistors, or whatever it is
> that they hade over a million of.

It's certainly not transistors - the 386 only has about 275k
transistors, and the earlier 80x86 chips obviously have fewer.

I suspect that it is short for iAPX, a term they use on more
than just the 80x86 line (like the i860), and seems to designate
a processor architecture.

						Bruce C. Wright