What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Which Linux or BSD distributions do still support i386, i486 or i586 CPUs?Were there 8086 coprocessors other than the 8087?When specifying Intel 80x86 instruction execution time, what is included in the cycle count?Are there any articles elucidating the history of the POPCOUNT instruction?Intel 8080 - Behaviour of the carry bit when comparing a value with 0Is there any reason to chose ES, FS, or GS over the others in real mode?How do you put a 286 in Protected Mode?Which pre-IEEE computers had a single precision FPU and implemented double precision floats in software?How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?How did 2-chip CPUs work?What can an 8086 CPU do if an x87 floating-point coprocessor is attached to it?
Where are Serre’s lectures at Collège de France to be found?
Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?
How to Make a Beautiful Stacked 3D Plot
How can I use the Python library networkx from Mathematica?
Why are the trig functions versine, haversine, exsecant, etc, rarely used in modern mathematics?
Should I use a zero-interest credit card for a large one-time purchase?
How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?
If a VARCHAR(MAX) column is included in an index, is the entire value always stored in the index page(s)?
Fantasy story; one type of magic grows in power with use, but the more powerful they are, they more they are drawn to travel to their source
Around usage results
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
Extracting terms with certain heads in a function
Circuit to "zoom in" on mV fluctuations of a DC signal?
What is the meaning of the simile “quick as silk”?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers?
An adverb for when you're not exaggerating
Is it a good idea to use CNN to classify 1D signal?
Can you use the Shield Master feat to shove someone before you make an attack by using a Readied action?
Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours
How to react to hostile behavior from a senior developer?
Is there any way for the UK Prime Minister to make a motion directly dependent on Government confidence?
What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?
Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?
What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Which Linux or BSD distributions do still support i386, i486 or i586 CPUs?Were there 8086 coprocessors other than the 8087?When specifying Intel 80x86 instruction execution time, what is included in the cycle count?Are there any articles elucidating the history of the POPCOUNT instruction?Intel 8080 - Behaviour of the carry bit when comparing a value with 0Is there any reason to chose ES, FS, or GS over the others in real mode?How do you put a 286 in Protected Mode?Which pre-IEEE computers had a single precision FPU and implemented double precision floats in software?How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?How did 2-chip CPUs work?What can an 8086 CPU do if an x87 floating-point coprocessor is attached to it?
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 11:25
3
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 11:31
1
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 13:05
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
Apr 12 at 13:55
1
Along @Raffzahn's point, you might want to specify discrete processors. There isn't much demand for x86-compatible microcontrollers anymore but IP cores for SOCs are definitely still used. I know the LCD monitor I'm looking at has one.
– user71659
Apr 12 at 19:19
add a comment |
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
edited Apr 12 at 12:52
Toby Speight
304312
304312
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
asked Apr 12 at 4:32
user12280user12280
12314
12314
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 11:25
3
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 11:31
1
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 13:05
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
Apr 12 at 13:55
1
Along @Raffzahn's point, you might want to specify discrete processors. There isn't much demand for x86-compatible microcontrollers anymore but IP cores for SOCs are definitely still used. I know the LCD monitor I'm looking at has one.
– user71659
Apr 12 at 19:19
add a comment |
2
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 11:25
3
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 11:31
1
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 13:05
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
Apr 12 at 13:55
1
Along @Raffzahn's point, you might want to specify discrete processors. There isn't much demand for x86-compatible microcontrollers anymore but IP cores for SOCs are definitely still used. I know the LCD monitor I'm looking at has one.
– user71659
Apr 12 at 19:19
2
2
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 11:25
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 11:25
3
3
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 11:31
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 11:31
1
1
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 13:05
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 13:05
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
Apr 12 at 13:55
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
Apr 12 at 13:55
1
1
Along @Raffzahn's point, you might want to specify discrete processors. There isn't much demand for x86-compatible microcontrollers anymore but IP cores for SOCs are definitely still used. I know the LCD monitor I'm looking at has one.
– user71659
Apr 12 at 19:19
Along @Raffzahn's point, you might want to specify discrete processors. There isn't much demand for x86-compatible microcontrollers anymore but IP cores for SOCs are definitely still used. I know the LCD monitor I'm looking at has one.
– user71659
Apr 12 at 19:19
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
6
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
4
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9660%2fwhat-was-the-last-x86-cpu-that-did-not-have-the-x87-floating-point-unit-built-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
add a comment |
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
add a comment |
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
edited Apr 12 at 11:59
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
answered Apr 12 at 5:42
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.6k8165175
40.6k8165175
add a comment |
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
6
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
4
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
6
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
4
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
edited Apr 12 at 10:21
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
answered Apr 12 at 5:14
KazKaz
2,631945
2,631945
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
6
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
4
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
add a comment |
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
6
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
4
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
Apr 12 at 8:40
6
6
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
Apr 12 at 9:57
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
Technically the i486 has an FPU built in. The difference is that the i486SX chip simply had it disabled whereas the DX did not. If my memory serves correctly, the situation was that the SX was a means of not only producing a lower cost SKU, but also a way to salvage chips that had manufacturing defects in the FPU unit.
– bjb
Apr 12 at 16:52
4
4
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
@bjb later 486SXs were fabbed with no FPU on the die at all. See this page for an interesting discussion on the topic (including the defects story).
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 17:06
add a comment |
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9660%2fwhat-was-the-last-x86-cpu-that-did-not-have-the-x87-floating-point-unit-built-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 11:25
3
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
Apr 12 at 11:31
1
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 12 at 13:05
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
Apr 12 at 13:55
1
Along @Raffzahn's point, you might want to specify discrete processors. There isn't much demand for x86-compatible microcontrollers anymore but IP cores for SOCs are definitely still used. I know the LCD monitor I'm looking at has one.
– user71659
Apr 12 at 19:19