Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM PC prehistory (was Japanese Jos
Message-ID: <76700100@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 89 17:30:18 GMT
References: <21559@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #R:uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU:21559:p.cs.uiuc.edu:76700100:000:889
Nf-From: p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Dec 28 12:57:00 1989


/* Written  4:40 pm  Dec 26, 1989 by bruceh@brushwud.sgi.com in comp.arch */
> As I recall, both the '86 & the '88 have multiplexed address & data busses,
> so they are identical packages, and they must have almost identical dies.
> I can't believe Intel priced them so differently.

If you look back at the history of the introduction of 16/8-bit
processors (8086/88 & 68000/8), in both cases the 8-bit processor cost
about HALF as much as the prevailing cost for the 16-bit processor,
when the 8-bit processor was introduced.

This is because the 8-bit processor is a "microcontroller", and the
16-bit processor is a "CPU".  Pricing has very little to do with
production costs -- it has more to do with the marketplace and the
demand for the processor.  The 8-bit processor is certainly *not* a
state-of-the-art processor.  Think:  How much does a 386SX cost
compared to a vanilla '386?