From the 4004 in 1971 to Skylake in 2015, we look at the evolution of Intel's CPUs.
The History Of Intel CPUs : Read more
The History Of Intel CPUs : Read more
No. The 8086 was not a SIMD-capable CPU, nor any more superscalar than the 8088. Please fix it.the 16-bit data bus and execution hardware allowed the 8086 to simultaneously work on two eight-bit instructions.
Half the data bus - not half the address bus. It was merely a performance-reduced version of the 8086, due to crippling the memory bus (as you point out). It was instruction-set-compatible with the 8086, however, and could execute all of the former's 16-bit instructions. It was in my first PC.... the 8088 around the same time. This processor was based on the 8088, but it disabled half of the address bus, limiting it to eight-bit operations. As it still had access to up to 1MB of RAM and ran at higher frequencies
I think you mean 386SX. Maybe 386SL was a follow-on laptop chip... Anyway, again "limited to 16-bit operations" makes it sound like a 16-bit CPU. It wasn't - just had half the memory bus width, similar to what they did with the 8086 vs. 8088. It's not clear to readers that you're talking about memory bus operations, rather than instructions.To segment its product line-up with a more budget-friendly offering, Intel also introduced the 80386SL. This processor was almost identical to the 32-bit 80386, but was limited to 16-bit operations.
I had a socket-475 P4 Prescott with quad-pumped FSB. I think even some Northwoods had it.Intel also introduced the new LGA 775 interface that featured support for DDR2 memory and improved the quad-pumped FSB.
Prescott was rumored to have 64-bit support, but it was disabled. I actually wonder how much of its heat/performance problems came from all the baggage of 64-bit.Prescott was also Intel's first 64-bit x86 processor, allowing it to access more RAM.