🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <te-0608952033540001@mac1-d036a1.uwasa.fi> te@uwasa.fi (Tuomas Eerola) writes:
>In article <3vtkg5$d0n@inews.sc.intel.com>, mvilas@zws298.sc.intel.com
>(Mark Vilas) wrote:
>
>> In article <3vrf2o$ffq@meaddata.meaddata.com>, christw@meaddata.com
>(Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>> Actually, there is a convention to describe bitness, while maybe not
>"generally agreed-upon",
>> most processors adhere to it, including the 8088 and the 68000.  This is
>data path width.
>> This is not to be confused with register size or external data bus
>width.  Both the
>> 8088 and the 68000 have 16 bit data paths and are thus classified as 16
>bit processors.
>
>Also Intel 386SX has 16-bit data path, but Intel has 
>talked about it as 32-bit processor. Why?

Actually, every processor INTERNALLY that INTEL made in the 8086 family had
at LEAST 16 bit processing.  Unfortunately, most support circuitry was 8 bit,
so they came out with the 8088(which put the 16 bits out 8 at a time).

The 386sx was to the 386dx as the 88 was to the 86.

Starting with the 486, such designations become hazy.

Steve