Gizmo's Freeware Forum

Gizmo's Freeware Forum (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/)
-   ChitChat (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/chitchat/)
-   -   If Intel had kept the old numbering system (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/chitchat/12385-if-intel-had-kept-old-numbering-system.html)

Doobie 04. Sep 2013 03:56 AM

If Intel had kept the old numbering system
 
Intel version numbers:
386 = 386
486 = 486
586 = Pentium
686 = Pentium II/III
786 = Pentium 4
886 = Core 2
986 = Intel i3/i5/i7

Bonus:
Windows version numbers:
v3 = Windows 3.x
v4 = Windows 9x
v5 = XP
v6 = Vista/7/8
(these are the version numbers reported at the command prompt)

George.J 05. Sep 2013 03:38 AM

I'd have to memorize them all :D

joeguru 06. Sep 2013 07:21 AM

The first 16 bit process or the 8086 and the last 16 bit processor the 286.

Remah 06. Sep 2013 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doobie (Post 92020)
Intel version numbers:
386 = 386
486 = 486
586 = Pentium
686 = Pentium II/III
786 = Pentium 4
886 = Core 2
986 = Intel i3/i5/i7

Whenever I see this, it reminds me that for several years from 2003 to 2009 Intel didn't have the leading CPUs because their transition to 64-bit was initially a flop.

AMD had the first successful 64-bit processors with x86 compatibility. They started in 2003 with the K8 CPU and called their architecture AMD64. Intel was forced to follow AMD to remain competitive and eventually followed the AMD nomenclature in calling their architecture I64.

J_L 06. Sep 2013 08:22 AM

Do you mean IA-64 or Intel 64? Never heard of I64.

Remah 06. Sep 2013 05:11 PM

As regularly happens, I often show my age because tend to use the terms that I was originally introduced to. Like remembering Digital Video Disk for DVD rather than the later term Digital Versatile Disc.

IA64 was the earlier Intel Architecture (IA) or Itanium. When Intel followed AMD's 64-bit solution they eventually named it Intel 64 which was shortened to I64. But the abbreviation had a short life because of confusion with other uses of that term including Integer 64. So it largely died out within a year and is not usually found after 2004.

Doobie 06. Sep 2013 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remah (Post 92147)
Whenever I see this, it reminds me that for several years from 2003 to 2009 Intel didn't have the leading CPUs because their transition to 64-bit was initially a flop.

Up until Core 2, AMD was always my choice in processors. Until then, AMD always had competitive mainstream performance at a better price. Even more so when Intel stumbled in the 64-bit transition. But, since Core 2, it has been Intel all the way (on the desktop).

Intel was too ambitious for their own good when when they started going 64-bit.

Doobie 06. Sep 2013 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remah (Post 92179)
As regularly happens, I often show my age because tend to use the terms that I was originally introduced to. Like remembering Digital Video Disk for DVD rather than the later term Digital Versatile Disc.

Remember the Atari VCS rather than the later name Atari 2600? Remember the Counting Board rather than the later term Abacus?

joeguru 07. Sep 2013 02:35 AM

Remember swapping out the Intel 8088 with the NEC V20 because it was faster?

Remah 07. Sep 2013 03:47 AM

I remember the V20 and NEC PCs which were popular for a few years.

I remember the IBM PC-XT when introduced in New Zealand cost the annual average wage. But that was souped up with a small Epson dot-matrix printer, a CGA monitor, RAM doubled to 128KB and Lotus 123. Currently, average PCs cost about 5% of the average wage here.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.