🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <579hcc$5d2@paperboy.ids.net> zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?
>
>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>masks are identical, yes?
>
>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?

Once upon a time, there was a little company called "Intel".  They had a 
BIG problem, becuase they were competing with another company, and didn't
have enough resources to build chips.  They then asked some other companies,
one of which was AMD, to help them out.  In order for them to do this, they
had to give them license, etc....  

Eventually, intel got enough resources where they wanted to go alone, but those
danged licenses got in the way.  They tried twice to get everyone to change 
processors, but the old licensees managed to keep up.  So intel SUED and SUED
and SUED!  

Finally, they won.  AMD and the like couldn't use any of the old information,
at least not that under NDA.  And so, to this day, they DON'T use it!  If they
did, Intel would sue their pants off!

NONE of the pentium competitors use the same mask.  In fact, the AMD K5 core
is NOT even pentium compatible!  It is a RISC processor.  Of course, other
circuitry hides this fact from you, and the resultant chip looks every bit
like a pentium.  The Floating point is a little slower.  Other things are
a bit faster.

Steve
 

>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
>   finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key
>   Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne.

Even though you knew he had NO chance?
I voted for perot in 1992, though I knew he had little chance.  NOW, I am
embarased by it!  Dole lost by very little.  They announced Clinton the winner
of a state when LESS than 50% of the votes were counted. 

Back when there were THOUSANDS of votes to be counted, and dornan was losing
by only 200, the Democrats declared him a LOSER, and said he should give up.

How would they have reacted if I had gotten up, heard that DOLE had 50% MORE
votes than Clinton, and declared HIM the winner, with about 80 million left
to be counted?

My point?  Dornan SUPPOSEDLY lost by less than 9000.  Voter fraud is FACT, in
fact a show a few days before the election found ONE district where at least
14,000 voter registrations were fraudulant!  Cats, dogs, parakeets, and dead 
people were registered.  Also, some people were listed 5 times!
Dole lost by fewer votes than perot got!  Kennedy one by only 5 votes per
district!  

>
>       "Are you freer today than you were 4 years ago?"

I am LESS free than I was 4 years ago.  The person in charge of the budget is
going to be in charge until 2000, and he said he expected taxes to be 82% by
2002!  He really ought to read all the different histories of like the
BOSTON TEA PARTY
CREATION of the U.S.
CREATION of the magna carta
ETC......

On 24 Nov 1996 13:08:28 GMT, zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:

>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?

No, not really, basically all software will work on either chip.

>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>masks are identical, yes?

No, up until the AMD 486 lineup, AMD was making clones of Intel's products.
But now AMD has its own unique design which shares nothing with Intel's
equivalent products, the Pentium or PentiumPro. Mhz for Mhz, an AMD K5 is
somewhere between a Pentium and PentiumPro for real performance. But the
architecture is unique to AMD. The software can't tell the difference
usually (even low-level software like operating systems), because software
is too high-level in the CPU's functional layers these days. It used to be
the software was the lowest level available, but nowadays the CPU's have
various levels lower still.

>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?

AMD is not making CPUs that are as fast as the Intels, MHz-wise. The
highest speed K5 is equivalent to a Pentium 133 nowadays. AMD is behind in
this field, but likely it'll be able to catch up in a few months.

					Yousuf Khan
--
Yousuf J. Khan
ykhan@achilles.net
Ottawa, Ont, Canada
Nation's capital

On 24 Nov 1996 13:08:28 GMT, zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:

>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?

No, not really, basically all software will work on either chip.

>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>masks are identical, yes?

No, up until the AMD 486 lineup, AMD was making clones of Intel's products.
But now AMD has its own unique design which shares nothing with Intel's
equivalent products, the Pentium or PentiumPro. Mhz for Mhz, an AMD K5 is
somewhere between a Pentium and PentiumPro for real performance. But the
architecture is unique to AMD. The software can't tell the difference
usually (even low-level software like operating systems), because software
is too high-level in the CPU's functional layers these days. It used to be
the software was the lowest level available, but nowadays the CPU's have
various levels lower still.

>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?

AMD is not making CPUs that are as fast as the Intels, MHz-wise. The
highest speed K5 is equivalent to a Pentium 133 nowadays. AMD is behind in
this field, but likely it'll be able to catch up in a few months.

					Yousuf Khan
--
Yousuf J. Khan
ykhan@achilles.net
Ottawa, Ont, Canada
Nation's capital

I beg to differ.  I am fairly sure that the K5 is not 100% compatible
with the Pentium.  There are some instructions in the Pentium, that
are not in the K5.   That is why I went with the Pentium.  Everything
I have read, and have asked AMD about, is that the K5 is a souped up
486.  

			Duane

ykhan@achilles.net (Yousuf Khan) wrote:

>On 24 Nov 1996 13:08:28 GMT, zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>wrote:

>>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?

>No, not really, basically all software will work on either chip.

>>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>>masks are identical, yes?

>No, up until the AMD 486 lineup, AMD was making clones of Intel's products.
>But now AMD has its own unique design which shares nothing with Intel's
>equivalent products, the Pentium or PentiumPro. Mhz for Mhz, an AMD K5 is
>somewhere between a Pentium and PentiumPro for real performance. But the
>architecture is unique to AMD. The software can't tell the difference
>usually (even low-level software like operating systems), because software
>is too high-level in the CPU's functional layers these days. It used to be
>the software was the lowest level available, but nowadays the CPU's have
>various levels lower still.

>>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?

>AMD is not making CPUs that are as fast as the Intels, MHz-wise. The
>highest speed K5 is equivalent to a Pentium 133 nowadays. AMD is behind in
>this field, but likely it'll be able to catch up in a few months.

>					Yousuf Khan
>--
>Yousuf J. Khan
>ykhan@achilles.net
>Ottawa, Ont, Canada
>Nation's capital

Hello Duane Charron,

> I beg to differ. I am fairly sure that the K5 is not 100% compatible
> with the Pentium. There are some instructions in the Pentium, that
> are not in the K5. That is why I went with the Pentium. Everything
> I have read, and have asked AMD about, is that the K5 is a souped up
> 486.

Nope. K5 supports the full Pentium instruction set, and also all of
the Pentium software features. This includes:

	- RDTSC, RDMSR, WRMSR and CMPXCHG8B
	- TSC, MCE and DE
	- VME and 4MB paging

From that point the K5 is better than the 6x86, which lacks all the
listed stuff (ans still claims to be Pentium-like). For details you
should refer to my website.

Things, K5 lacks, include:

	- local APIC
	- FRC
	- Probe Mode

Maybe you mixed the K5 with the AMD 5x86, which really more is like
a 486DX4 processor, and which lacked all the listed stuff. But hey,
this part is history now.

-- 
Christian Ludloff      http://www.sandpile.org/   Interested in x86 chips?
ludloff@sandpile.org    ftp://ftp.sandpile.org/   Go and visit my website!

Speaking for myself.   Trademarks are property of their respective owners.

In article <57dag0$e5t@q.seanet.com> duanec@mlnk.com (Duane Charron) writes:
>I beg to differ.  I am fairly sure that the K5 is not 100% compatible
>with the Pentium.  There are some instructions in the Pentium, that
>are not in the K5.   That is why I went with the Pentium.  Everything
>I have read, and have asked AMD about, is that the K5 is a souped up
>486.  
>
>			Duane

WRONG!  You are confusing it with a 5x86!

The ONLY 100% INTEL compatible chip is.....??????  Even INTEL is not INTEL
compatible!  Some P5s don't work with others in SMP, and some have minor/major
flaws that you can only really know when you look for them!

INTEL IS the most compatible though.  The AMD K5 apparantly tests to be a 
pentium on some programs, and is win95 certified!

Steve
 

Thank you to all who replied, here and in e-mail.

I had no idea that AMD and Intel had parted licensing ways.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga
   finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key
   
   Bend over taxpayers, Hillary Clinton's back and she's got a
   mandatory, big-government health plan for YOU!

The one named Yousuf Khan <ykhan@achilles.net> wrote
>AMD is not making CPUs that are as fast as the Intels, MHz-wise. The
>highest speed K5 is equivalent to a Pentium 133 nowadays. AMD is behind in
>this field, but likely it'll be able to catch up in a few months.
>
>                                       Yousuf Khan

        This is partly because they don't want to make the faster chips.
For them the cheaper mass market stuff is where they are hitting the
other manufactures, and making them the profits.

                                                Darren

-- 
Darren L. Morgan                    email : dlmorgan@VisionX.demon.co.uk
                                   www : http://www.VisionX.demon.co.uk/

In article <+I7M9FAP4xnyEweE@visionx.demon.co.uk> "Darren L. Morgan" <dlmorgan@visionx.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The one named Yousuf Khan <ykhan@achilles.net> wrote
>>AMD is not making CPUs that are as fast as the Intels, MHz-wise. The
>>highest speed K5 is equivalent to a Pentium 133 nowadays. AMD is behind in
>>this field, but likely it'll be able to catch up in a few months.
>>
>>                                       Yousuf Khan
>
>        This is partly because they don't want to make the faster chips.
>For them the cheaper mass market stuff is where they are hitting the
>other manufactures, and making them the profits.
>
>                                                Darren
>
The fastest now is equiv to a P5/166!  They are showing off one that is 
rumored to be faster than a pentium pro!  There goes your theory!!!!!!
8-)  Oh well, they don't expect it to be shipping until sometime before
3/31/97, so you are right there.  The K6 however, IS shipping in
small quantities NOW!

Steve

On 24 Nov 1996 13:08:28 GMT, zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:

>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?
>
>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>masks are identical, yes?
>
>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
>   finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key
>   Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne.
>
>       "Are you freer today than you were 4 years ago?"
Mike the K5 133 is a 486 running at 133Mhz ,PERIOD. It is the
equivalent to an Intel 586 running at 75Mhz. You can buy a 486
PCI motherboard and an AMD K5 for about the price of a good 
586 motherboard. I have built 6-7 of these systems for  clients, 
most of whom were upgrading their system. If you have been using
a 486 X 66 then this puppy will blow that system away. If you have the
coins then get an Intel 133Mhz, just a little more expensive than the
slower chips but not the big jump price wise to the 166mhz. No matter
which way you go, get a PCI video card if you can.
Later
dad@dos.net

Darren L. Morgan wrote:
> For them the cheaper mass market stuff is where they are hitting the
> other manufactures, and making them the profits.

I think that after looking at AMD's last quarter results, the word
'profits' above should be replaced with 'revenues', since the profit was
negative...

> 
>                                                 Darren
> 
> --
> Darren L. Morgan                    email : dlmorgan@VisionX.demon.co.uk
>                                    www : http://www.VisionX.demon.co.uk/

dad@ark-la-tex.com (dad@ark-la-tex.com) wrote:

>Mike the K5 133 is a 486 running at 133Mhz ,PERIOD. It is the
>equivalent to an Intel 586 running at 75Mhz. You can buy a 486
>PCI motherboard and an AMD K5 for about the price of a good 
>586 motherboard. I have built 6-7 of these systems for  clients, 
>most of whom were upgrading their system. If you have been using
>a 486 X 66 then this puppy will blow that system away. If you have the
>coins then get an Intel 133Mhz, just a little more expensive than the
>slower chips but not the big jump price wise to the 166mhz. No matter
>which way you go, get a PCI video card if you can.
>Later
>dad@dos.net

you are incorrect.  The "K5 PR-133" is a Pentium pin compatible
processor that runs at 100 MHz, and outperforms the Intel P5-133.
See the FAQ at AMD's site for more information, i believe you were
confusing the "5K86" with the "5X86".

In article <32a2c5ff.96485928@news.ark-la-tex.com> dad@ark-la-tex.com writes:
>On 24 Nov 1996 13:08:28 GMT, zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>wrote:
>
>>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?
>>
>>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>>masks are identical, yes?
>>
>>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?
>>
>>--
>>-- Mike Zarlenga
>>   finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key
>>   Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne.
>>
>>       "Are you freer today than you were 4 years ago?"
>Mike the K5 133 is a 486 running at 133Mhz ,PERIOD. It is the
>equivalent to an Intel 586 running at 75Mhz. You can buy a 486
>PCI motherboard and an AMD K5 for about the price of a good 
>586 motherboard. I have built 6-7 of these systems for  clients, 
>most of whom were upgrading their system. If you have been using
>a 486 X 66 then this puppy will blow that system away. If you have the
>coins then get an Intel 133Mhz, just a little more expensive than the
>slower chips but not the big jump price wise to the 166mhz. No matter
>which way you go, get a PCI video card if you can.
>Later
>dad@dos.net

Do me a favor!  Go out, get the K5.  Put it in your motherboard, you'll have
to force it a bit, and blow it up!  Who knows, It might keep AMD from 
suing you for such slander!  BTW, ANYONE that sells an AMD K5 with a 486
motherboard is going to go out of business!  

BTW, what is the name of your company?

Steve

stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) wrote:

>BTW, what is the name of your company?

You don't really expect him to answer, to you ??


David Wess

dwess@wess.com
AOL: davidw214
Compuserve: 76336,317
Prodigy: FDBW84a