Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!umix!umich!mibte!fmsrl7!oxtrap!hal!mandrill!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 16bit 386 chips!
Message-ID: <752@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Nov-87 11:01:20 EST
Article-I.D.: neoucom.752
Posted: Wed Nov 11 11:01:20 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 16:17:34 EST
References: <5011@oberon.USC.EDU> <2139@lsuc.UUCP>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 29
Keywords: 386
Summary: Look at the chip itself
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:10148 comp.sys.intel:397


The early batches of '386 CPUs from Intel a\had about a 10% failure
rate on 32 bit multiplies.  It is my understanding that the faliure
was caused by a bug in the manufacturing quality control testing
procedure.-- NOT a flaw in the architecture of the chip.

Intel has a program that you can run to test your '386 CPU (I don't
have a '386 here, so I haven't gone looking for the program).  I'd
imagine that your local intel sales rep ought to be able to get you
a copy of the program.

The suspect chips are marked only as "Intel 80386 CPU c. 1986" or
some such.  These chips could be either good or bad.  Intel was
selling known bad chips too (can you say "lets make a fast buck"?).
The bad ones are typically marked in white ink: "16 BIT SOFTWARE
ONLY".  If you have one of these, Intel isn't being terribly
sympathetic, I hear.  Known good '386s have two capital sigmas
stamped (probably on the lower left side) in black ink.

According to an article in Infoworld (they could be right or
wrong), Intel will made good with a replacement if you send in your
dud '386.  They aren't going to start until after the first quarter
1988, according to the article.

I've looked at about 5 different '386 machines at several dealers
in the area, and all I've seen have the two-sigma variety chip.

Bill
(wtm@neoucom.UUCP)