Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!msuinfo!frith.egr.msu.edu!dailey
From: dailey@frith.egr.msu.edu (Chris Dailey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: 486SX
Message-ID: <1991May6.133123.21130@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 6 May 91 13:31:23 GMT
References: <1991May2.212247.12525@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University, College of Engineering
Lines: 32

In article <3645@borg.cs.unc.edu> cullip@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Timothy Cullip) writes:
>In article <1991May2.212247.12525@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> abs0@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung) writes:
>>  I have heard that Intel might release 486SX. [...]
>>-- Kelvin Leung
>I don't want to start an "I hate Intel thread" here, but I just can't
>resist giving my impressions of the 486SX.  Intel sells the standard
>486DX chip for about $500.  The SX is in fact a DX, but with the floating
>point unit turned off (i.e. it's on the chip, but disabled so it's just 
>as expensive to produce) but sells it for about $250. Kind of gives you 
>an idea of the profit margin on the DX.

My guess is that the FPU is one of the more complicated pieces of the
processor.  The chips also have on-board self-test circuitry.  The
failure rate for chips is very high (I've heard as much as 90% failure
rate), especially for chips as complicated as a 386 or 486.  I would
imagine that if iNTEL knew that just the FPU was not working properly
and everything else worked out fine, they'd have some system of turning
off the FPU, putting the chip in a different mounting (for the 286
socket), and selling it as a 486SX.  What would have been throwaway
(ie, pure loss) becomes a profit.  If 20% of all throwaway chips are
bad just because of the FPU, then they could theoretically increase the
yield of chips from 10% to 30%, which would tremendously increase
profits.

[...]
>To me, it sounds like the marketing people at Intel have gone off the
>deep end. Or maybe they are just laughing all the way to the bank.

If my guess above is correct, I'd say they're making good business
decisions.

>Tim Cullip