Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (66124)	7/19/1999 7:03:00 PM
From: fyo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585178

Petz - Re: I also remember that the Am486 was faster at a few instructions (IDIV?) than Intel which led to problems in time delay loops. This could not be true if the Am486 had identical microcode to the Intel 486. I am by NO means an expert on this subject, but could the execution or retire stage of the CPU be the cause of this discrepancy? --fyodor

To: Petz who wrote (66124)	7/19/1999 7:14:00 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585178

Ref-<You already said that AMD did not copy the Intel 486 chip design and layout. But unless the hardware is absolutely identical, the Intel microcode would not work on the AMD design> The chip layout and circuit design were different, but the logic design was the same. If the logic design was a little different, the microcode would have to be significantly different. Apparently AMD was not comfortable with significant changes to the microcode, and elected to minimize the design risk by substantially copying Intel. Regarding the IDIV I am not familiar with with the details.The court ruled that AMD copied the Intel microcode.