if I remember correctly the 386 didn't have branch prediction so as a thought experiment how would a 386 with design sizes from today (~9nm) fare with the other chips?
skissane 47 minutes ago [-]
> Regenerating the cell layout was very costly, taking many hours on an IBM mainframe computer.
I would love to know more about this – how much info is publicly available on how Intel used mainframes to design the 386? Did they develop their own software, or use something off-the-shelf? And I'm somewhat surprised they used IBM mainframes, instead of something like a VAX.
themafia 21 minutes ago [-]
There's not a lot of "off the shelf" in terms of mainframes. You're usually buying some type of contract. In that case I would expect a lot of direct support for customer created modules that took an existing software library and turned into the specific application they required.
burnt-resistor 6 minutes ago [-]
I'm curious to know which model, speed, voltage, stepping, and package writing sample(s) were evaluated because there isn't just one 386. i386DX I assume but it doesn't specify whether it was a buggy 32-bit multiply or "ΣΣ" or newer.
"Showing one's work" would need details that are verifiable and reproducible.
Does that schedule include all the revisions they did too? The first few were almost uselessly buggy:
https://www.pcjs.org/documents/manuals/intel/80386/
I would love to know more about this – how much info is publicly available on how Intel used mainframes to design the 386? Did they develop their own software, or use something off-the-shelf? And I'm somewhat surprised they used IBM mainframes, instead of something like a VAX.
"Showing one's work" would need details that are verifiable and reproducible.