
AMD To Stop Production Of 486, 586 & K6 Chips 224
Dear VersaLogic Customer:
This letter is being sent to alert you to an important change in the long-term availability of several VersaLogic products. Please read it carefully.
AMD, the supplier of CPU chips that are used on many of our products, has notified us that they plan to re-tool the production line that currently produces 486, 586 and K6 CPU chips. AMD needs to use their Fab 25 facility to produce a different line of products and will stop production on these CPU chips on June 28, 2002. The CPU chips produced by this facility are used in our VSBC-2, VSBC-6, VSBC-7, Panther, VL-686-2, and VL-586-1 products.
This decision by AMD, with whom we have worked closely for many years, is a major blow to the embedded computer market. It is very surprising that their long-standing dedication to the embedded market has taken such an abrupt turn. As recently as October 2000 they announced new processors (the K6-2E+ and K6-IIIE+) and assured us of their continuing long-term support for the embedded market.
Please note that this decision by AMD does not mean that they will immediately halt production or that these CPU chips will be in short supply. Normal production of these chips is scheduled to continue through June 2002. Last-time-buy orders can be placed in June for delivery of the chips in late 2002 and early 2003.
VersaLogic management has been hearing rumors of this possible change (various versions of it) over the last few months and has been working closely with AMD to avoid this radical change in their direction. We prepared for the possibility that their decision would ultimately be to issue an end-of-life notice. Now that the decision has been made, our focus will be on assisting our customers with planning and migration issues over the next 12-24 months.
Although this change is not immediate, each customer must look at the long term impact that this announcement will have on their product usage. In some cases this will mean placing an end-of-life purchase order with VersaLogic to continue delivery of the current product even after the AMD chips have been discontinued. For others it may involve qualifying new products, or using Intel Tillamook versions of our current products, for the current application. Tillamook versions of most impacted products will be available before year end. For further information please see the roadmap and migration information on our web site at http://www.versalogic.com/support/rdmp/rdmp.asp or contact us directly at info@versalogic.com.
Again, this change is not immediate, but planning steps should be taken now to assure a smooth transition in the future. We stand ready to support you as needed to make this transition as easy and painless as possible. "
full test pasted below (Score:4, Funny)
This is a test of the AMD emergency broadcast message. This is only a test. If this had been an actual email, you door would have been kicked in by federal agents, your AMD CPU's would have been confiscated, and you would have been arrested for violation of the DMCA. We now return you to your regularly scheduled email.
Bad News (Score:3, Funny)
Damn! (Score:2, Funny)
If not AMD, someone else? (Score:2, Interesting)
sounds like a business opportunity (Score:2)
SIMM memory isn't getting cheaper either, if you haven't notices.
-dB
Not really. (Score:2)
This is a lot more important than it seems. (Score:3, Informative)
Generally, the trend in the embedded -- specifically automation and control -- markets, is to move from expensive and non-forward-compatible ASICs and SH processors and the MIPS series to x86 processors. Why, you ask? Because x86-based PLCs can be programmed using a standard compiler, instead of a special cross-compiler like the Green Hill Compiler (which costs a lot).
Did I mention the cross-compilers for SH/MIPS/etc cost a *lot*?
By using x86 one COTS compilers. Conceivably, if you're using COTS equipment for the buses (standard UART, etc.) you could compile applications and OS using VC++, gcc, Turbo C, etc. x86 for embedded/PLC might seem braindead, but the cost savings outweigh the programmer's headache. This is especially true if you're running in real mode and don't have to worry about segmented memory (no matter; most embedded x86 programmers just initialize the segment registers to the same value and the offset registers to MAXINT and in doing so, get a flat memory model)
In addition, x86 is the primary target of VxWorks, UC/OS, and other off-the-shelf operating systems. The advantage to using 3rd party operating systems is, you don't have to spend time and money designing your own to find it incompatible along your product line -- especially if the low end of your product line is an SH processor and the high end is a pentium III. By using x86 for the embedded market, you can cash in on standardized, third party OSes and not have to worry about backwards/forwards compatibility.
So now that I've finished ranting about how x86 is a big cost saver, let's talk about why 486-K6 is important (from AMD's point of view). Let's face it. You couldn't use the athlon to power ANY industrial or consumer appliance -- unless you're talking about an oven. My athlon 1400 hits 55C and that's WITH a FOP38 cooler and four case fans. Air flow issues I may have aside, this is clearly unacceptable for thermostat controls, or assembly line mechanisms, or automotive controls, or space shuttle computers, or smart refrigerators, et al. By having a low-power K6-II (my laptop uses a K6-II/400 and it runs pretty damn cool) one can get optimum performance at a low cost, using very little power. Combine the "low cost/low power draw/reasonable performance" benefit with the "standardized OS/save costs on cross-compilers" benefit and you can see why x86 is compelling for embedded control applications.
Personally, if this is true (I've seen no announcement from AMD proper, only from this forwarded memo), I think it's going to be a big hit for AMD and other companies alike. It's going to be a big hit for AMD because they're going to lose money on a big, if unsexy market (embedded is FAR more important than PCs now, and in the future will be more so). It's going to be a big hit for embedded programmers because Intel will have a monopoly on the x86 embedded market. As more and more managers decide to move from SH/MIPS/Zilog/whatever to x86 so that they can cross-compile from COTS compilers, they're going to be pushing more money into Intel's hands. Intel can then reasonably do some serious price gouging, claiming "it takes extra effort to keep these 386E, etc plants open" even though the plants are a 'sunk cost' in terms of capital.
Well, the men in white coats are ranting... and they have blue faces?
(three tones)
Cross-development tool availability (Score:3, Informative)
Hiya. I work for MontaVista Software. We publish a linux-based cross-development kit which targets (among other things) several varieties each of mips, SH, ARM, PPC and x86. We use the GNU tools -- gcc, gdb and kin -- on all of these, and in most cases few bugfixes and changes are needed.
In any event, the tools we work with and publish are free. Getting a full copy of our cross-development kit (which comes with lots of nifty target apps, and good phone support, and whatnot) is liable to cost a fair bit, but (being that it's mostly GPLed) you get the rights to make your own modifications, redistribute and so forth.
Interestingly enough, not one of the targets we've got here that I've tested on has been based on AMD chips. We had Athlon support internally some time back (some of the "embedded" systems we work with are actually fairly beefy) but it's been dropped for whatever reason. Draw your own conclusions....
In any event, quality cross-compilers for odd platforms aren't really all that hard to come by.
Re:This is a lot more important than it seems. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that's the case at all... The K6IIE+ and the K6IIIE+ are going to be AMD's new embedded solutions (denoted by the "E"), and it says so in the article. As embedded devices become more and more complex, I think there'll be a greater demand for more powerful processors to run them. I think AMD is just thinking ahead, and the fact that they're gonna keep on making older processors until June 2002 says that they're not just jumping ship. I don't think AMD has ANY intention of giving away ANY market to Intel... they are competitors, after all. Not to mention that in the long run, it's probably easier and cheaper for them to fab K6-2/3 processors than the old stuff.
Who does this affect? This affects me. (Score:1)
The current handhelds we're buying are made by Juniper Systems. They're AMD 486s with 16MB RAM which can dual-boot DOS and WinCE. They're $2500 a pop. They're waterproof. They're damn near drop-proof. They've got heaters on the LCD screen so they can be used outside in freezing temperatures.
By using x86 procs and OSes, one can use existing apps with them and use standard development tools to create new apps (and develop and test on a desktop system!). These types of computers are not revised too often. I'm sure my company won't be affected too much by this, but it is something for me to worry about, and for our supplier to work out. The embedded market may be contracting because of the networking slowdown, but there's still demand for old AMD 486s, nonetheless.
Jon
errr? (Score:1)
Two things (Score:1)
Two - AMD is girding for war with Intel, as Intel announced it's going to fight for the low-cost chip prices. This is why competition is good. And this is why MSFT being a monopoly means the only effective competition is
Re:Two things (Score:1)
Interesting, but all is not lost. (Score:1)
We're no longer going to make obsolete hardware (Score:2)
This is nothing more than concession that they will stop making products that are obsolete NOW...in 10 months. Why is this an issue?
Re:We're no longer going to make obsolete hardware (Score:3, Funny)
Only when absolutely necessary. The R&D cost of re-engineering a product dwarfs the cost of saving a few pennies by moving to more modern, high volume hardware.
So this decision will cost some companies in R&D. That sucks!
No... no, wait, I'm an R&D engineer... yah, AMD! ;)
Re:We're no longer going to make obsolete hardware (Score:2)
No, seriously.
If chip is small, flexible and inexpensive, what does it matter when it was designed? If it's the least expensive way to meet the need of the application in question, why should someone use something "newer" just because it's there?
The embedded systems market isn't like general computing. There's no need to get the fastest thing out there because you might upgrade your software -- because the software and the hardware are developed to go with each other. Hence, you always want the cheapest hardware which will work for you (continued availability being one aspect of working, in this case).
These chips aren't obsolete in the embedded market. For a particular application, they may be the best thing out there.
An example of a product using these chips (Score:3, Informative)
Re:An example of a product using these chips (Score:1)
Still possible to buy a K6-III anywhere? (Score:2)
This looked to be the one upgrade for an old 66 Mhz series 7 motherboard that would have made sense, avoiding the slow main memory with a 400 Mhz on-die L2 cache. But the chips seemed to disappear almost as soon as AMD announced them.
Does anybody know of anywhere where they can still be found ?
(I believe the embedded chips have the same pinouts as the original and the mobile versions, but I could be wrong).
Re:Still possible to buy a K6-III anywhere? (Score:1)
Garbage pickin' (Score:2, Funny)
CPU recycling? Seriously! (Score:1)
Not any real problem (Score:2)
Real OS's are more flexible when it comes to changing chip architectures. Frankly, a StrongARM is a hell of a lot more powerful than a 486.
This shouldn't really affect any real small systems' design options. It will certainly inconvenience a few firms, but not for long. They should have expected this to happen. Only fools rely on single sources for parts.
Re:Not any real problem (Score:2)
Getting serious (Score:2, Informative)
In Other AMD and chip news... (Score:2)
Other news:
Rambus being spanked by a few shareholder lawsuits, in what is now a two fronted war.
One [yahoo.com] group's representation
Another [yahoo.com] group, lead plaintiff The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana
Yet another [yahoo.com] in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Yet another [yahoo.com] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Their latest Quarterly Report [yahoo.com] from EDGAR Online, speaks optimistically of impending legal successes.
55 postings and the points still missing. (Score:2, Insightful)
What this says is AMD's old product lines are not making enough money compared to reutilizing their us$1,000,000,000++ fabrication facility for newer devices. They apparently have decided that a non-slashdot concept called Return on Investment is maximized if they phase out the old lines.
There are few companies in the world that can caugh up the $1,200,000,000 to $1,400,000,000 to build a new fab manufacturing building and AMD obviously wants to do this as infrequently as possible.
Too bad! The AMD K6 line was practically what braught AMD back from the edge of extinction and allowed them to produce the very competitive follow-ons.
-- Multics
Well this will impact the entire world (Score:2)
And every industry in the world, unless someone still gets paid to build PC's. Really though, Intel was first in embedded systems so they won that game long before AMD dropped K6. Transmeta of course... what was Transmeta anyway?
The real problem with the older chips. (Score:5, Funny)
This is what happens... (Score:2, Funny)
If only the various users had banded together with the vast Free Chip community, this sort of thing would never happen.
Just imagine patent free, fast embedded processors available Free to all members of the community!
Who is going to join me in the new GNU/MAFFTP (Microprocessors Are Free For The People) project?
Re:This is what happens... (Score:2)
Just imagine patent free, fast embedded processors available Free to all members of the community!
The post I am responding to is a troll, but it brings up a few things.
Believe it or not "Free Chips" do exist: the OpenCores [opencores.org] project. They have some serious designs, including an ARM-ish [opencores.org] core. The downside to this: you need FPGAs to implement these in relatively small quantities, and they don't come cheap.
Ian
In a way, or another way... (Score:2)
Which, in a way sucks. No reason in going for overkill. But then I also realized, it can't be much cheaper for chip makers to keep making these slower chips. They have to use the same techniques that they used awhile back, which does cost them money. So, once all R&D costs are out of the way, in a way, it does become reasonable to just stop making the slower chips.
However, what would really be nice is if the big chip makers stopped trying to go for "bigger and faster" and instead develop a line of chips that focuses only on "better and cheaper." I have tons of uses for 300MHz machines, but if a 300MHz machine costs the same as a 600+, what's the point? It'd be nice if someone actually designed consumer chips with the intent of being cheap instead of bigger.
Oddly, this reminds me of American Cars vs European Cars for some reason.
Re:In a way, or another way... (Score:2)
I wonder how AMD was doing in embedded products (Score:5, Informative)
Given that AMD has only a fraction of Intel's resources, that's probably a smart move on their part. Spend your money where the opportunity for a return is best. Interestingly, the embedded market can make money (at least a little higher-up) - that's pretty much what's kept PowerPC cranking along all these years. It's popular in cars, printers, and networking equipment, to a much greater degree than Apple buys them. I think Intel still makes i960s, too - for that purpose.
Re:I wonder how AMD was doing in embedded products (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll bet that the Atari Jaguar with it's dual Motorola 68k based processors really helped keep the PowerPC crank along.
Re:I wonder how AMD was doing in embedded products (Score:2)
It looks like AMD is letting Intel support all the nitches, while they go after the mainstream market for a change.
Re:I wonder how AMD was doing in embedded products (Score:2, Informative)
That means a re-tooling for the embedded vendors.. (Score:2)
License to Hitachi? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe Hitachi could start making K6s.
Re:License to Hitachi? (Score:1)
I'm not sure if AMD's x86 licence permits that - I think they mentioned a limit of at most 20% shipments from external fabs in the last contract.
On a Similair Note... (Score:3, Funny)
oh dear Jesus no! (Score:3, Funny)
- A.P.
I am amazed that the 486 and 586 have lasted. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is also good to see AMD having the decentcy to notify their customers early, and that they will continue to develop chips for the embedded market.
Re:I am amazed that the 486 and 586 have lasted. (Score:2)
Embedded software and hardware ends up a lot more places than most folks expect.
Re:I am amazed that the 486 and 586 have lasted. (Score:2)
As for web services, the content could either be off a microdrive (and they are damn quiet) or remote-mounted (with Squid doing a reverse-proxy for your webserver, frequently accessed pages could be stored locally, in RAM). Of course, this latter bit presumes you've got another machine stowed away elsewhere.
If you're looking at an example (boot sequence info &c) for how a flash-based Linux system works, the iPaq is perhaps one of the ones with better publicly-available documentation.
Re:I am amazed that the 486 and 586 have lasted. (Score:1)
It's just in what you like. I'm glad to see them cut off manufacturing just so they can start back producing even faster chips to catch back up with Intel. Maybe we can even see AMD pushing out those 760MP chipsets too!!
That explains it. (Score:2)
We had some electrical wiring problems with the outlets going into this one office with 10 K6 workstations just yesterday, and all boxen in that office took a dirtnap (i.e. the motherboard fried on all of them, and the CPU fried on 2).
I called up our local PC vendor who had sold us the PCs just 7 months ago. The vendor said that AMD stopped making the CPUs and to get (original make) replacement boards and CPUs will take at least 4-6 weeks!
That meant I had to buy either
some more expensive motherboards, or
the only motherboards the vendor had
(Is he bluffing? Vendor poker, anyone?)
Makes me wonder if motherboard manufacturers have followed suit in this one.
Re:That explains it. (Score:2)
NASA's going to be pissed... (Score:2)
Ahhh Come on... (Score:2)
It could also be a ploy to check consumer's reaction and see if it's profitable in the mid term to keep that fab with these productions or not. Anyhow I wouldn't be too worried about the X86, Maybe a bit more for the new K6 line with low power, since there's not a load of them on the market... then again people might stock them in huge quantities.
Re:Ahhh Come on... (Score:2)
But what if they could make more cash off of the other chips? ok do this, look at the amount made off of the old chips. Then look at the amount they make off of the new chips. then subtract the cost of making a new production line from the proit from the old chips. If they are still in the black from the old chips AFTER making a new production line then it is a smart move to keep the old line. If not then it is cheeper tto dump the old chip and replace it with the newer one.
You're missing the point... (Score:5, Informative)
The "embedded" world is a bunch of companies producing devices that are usually small, lower powered, small production runs, and generally get made for alot longer than most electronics you're used to.
The last company I worked for (Midway Games) made arcade(coin-operated) video games. For a brief time, I worked with the group called "Wavenet". Wavenet was an idea to link arcade games up in arcades all through the world, to allow real-time tournaments. The first game that was tried was Mortal Kombat 3. MK3 used a really weird processor called a 34010 from Texas Instruments. (Weird in that it had *BIT* addressable memory, funky graphics opcodes built in that we never used, etc) However, the game designers pretty much pushed the CPU to its max before we had a chance to make it a networked game. There wasn't enough RAM, CPU, or ROM (for networking code) left to do it, as well as this board didn't have an ethernet output on it to connect it up to the router.
Midway ended up designing a tiiiiny little board (running a small embedded OS that just translated game commands into TCP/IP and vice versa) that plugged into an expansion connector on the MK3 board. It had an Ethernet controller, some ram, more ROMs for the networking code and a 386SX CPU made by AMD on it. Why not use a Pentium, or Pentium Pro? (which was the newest CPU out at the time)
Cost. Right now, you can get 386SX CPU's for a couple of dollars.
Power. Compare the latest generation of 386 CPUs to even a slow PII. HUUUGE difference here.
Board space. The embedded 386's are a little bigger than an american nickle. Pentium class CPU's... well... are big.
Longevity. When we bought these, we got committments from our suppliers that the CPU would be around for at least X months/years. This is REALLLLY important to us. If we're going to spend a ton of cash designing a board based around a CPU, we don't want it to disappear next month when something better comes along.
Had the embedded world not existed, and we had to use a faster/newer CPU, the board cost would have doubled, it would have been a bigger board(again more $$), We likely would have needed to put a bigger power supply(or played tricks with regulators), and then had to redsign the board every time the trendy chip got unpopular. All for horsepower we didn't even need!
Take a look here [intel.com]. Intel is still supporting and selling 80186 CPU's, for embedded controller uses.
Many many companies depend on slower CPU's for things. I don't know if it's still true, but at one point nearly every computer-controlled traffic light system sold used an 80186 CPU. Intel(?) came up with a "hardened" version of it that tolerated extreme cold and extreme heat. Companies that produce products like that are even happy paying double price for an old CPU that can do that, than installing air conditioners and heaters in every traffic light box.
The embedded CPU industry is a place where normal PC economics do not apply. It's not unheard of to pay extra for a part just because you know it'll be around for 10 years, instead of a cheaper(sometimes better) part that will go away as soon as it's not trendy.
While I don't know the specifics of this deal, it sounds like AMD is breaking their previously announced EOL(End Of Life) dates. This is quite likely going to piss a lot of people off who built their product around one of these CPUs.
Re:You're missing the point... (Score:1)
Mark..........
Hey, Long Time No See (Score:2)
CT also made a weird beast called MegaFrame [utdallas.edu]. Started out as an 80186-based LAN server (Ethernet? What's Ethernet? Network was an RS-422 daisy chain.) that could be expanded in a modular fashion to some ungodly number of CPUs. Then somebody decided the same box could host a 68010-based "application procesor", and it was CT's chance to break into the Unix marketplace. System admin was much fun: you had to know both Unix and CTOS, the proprietary OS that ran on the 80186 boards. And you thought configuring Win 2K was complicated!
Re:You're missing the point... (Score:3, Informative)
TI also provided a library for those who did want to use the graphics capability. It came in source code form. This library had errors in it (it wouldn't work right if compiled with the optimizer on).
They also had a font library and a CCITT Group IV Fax library.
I remember the bit addressing. It took a while to get used to opcodes being on mod 8 addresses. The other thing that the 340x0 (I used the 34020, too) had was that you could specify two specific word sizes (anywhere from 1 to 32 bits), so you could move, say, 17 bits in a single pop. Weird...
186? 386? 68hc11? Yup. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? Because they do the job at a decent price. Would we love to use a big, better, faster processor? Yep. But we need to keep price down, and in some cases, keep power way down. Like getting several days use out of batteries, or getting a product with an 'intrinsically safe' rating. This is not 'explosion proof' (contain any spark or blow-up inside the case) but 'can't even make a spark'.
Our ideal processor, just like everyone else's dream, would be infinitely fast/powerful, use no power, and cost nothing. Since that doesn't exist, choices get made. Sometimes an older x86 is the right choice.
Re:186? 386? 68hc11? Yup. (Score:2)
<p>Heh, the 68hc11 - that is what I used in an autonomous robot I built for an engineering project. I still have a few of these at home, and I can still remmeber how to write HC11 assembly
<p>Interesting to see someone is actually using these things in the real world
Embedded x86 applications... (Score:2)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:1)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:1)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because they're fast enough to do the task required for many embedded applications, and they require significantly less power than a Pentium class chip.
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Z80 & Z80A still in production (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Z80 & Z80A still in production (Score:1)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. I own a Garmin II+ GPS receiver, which is powered by an Intel 386EX processor - an unglamourous CPU, but one that does the job very nicely. Similarly my Palm III is powered by 16MHz Dragonball processor (68000 derivative) - nothing special these days, but serious grunt 10-15 years ago.
I may be showing my age here, but I first started computing at around 10 years of age on Z80 boxes (TRS-80/System-80: where 48k RAM and lowercase displays were a luxury!) I am still amazed at how good some of the software was on such limited hardware. Conversely, I see how crap some of the current software is and think "WTF"?!)
Competitions like the Perl obfuscated code contest are cool, but I'd like to see some contents based upon the best program than can be squeezed into an "antique" box like the TRS-80 Model I - that would really separate the hackers from the script kiddies...
Re:486 still in production? (Score:1)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you put in more horsepower than you need, you're wasting millions of dollars across hundreds of thousands of units. Across millions of units, its worth it to have engineers shave out a few pennies here and there.
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're doing something like controlling a VCR, a sprinkler system, TV channel changer, a thermostat, a stereo, or numerous other tasks a processor like that might be a bit too powerful. Zilog and others are still making bank off of 8bit processors.
I'm not sure how much this will matter, there are more than a few companies making cheap x86 clones and hopefully what will happen is pentium class chips will fill in the low end and become cheaper but AMD is making a statement about where they see their growth and future profit coming from. AMD also made a solid performing clone, you could count in Intel matching performance from their parts which was nice for some "embedded tasks" but it is definitely a split, on one hand they are making the fastest desktop CPU in the world and on the other they're trying to sell CPUs for pennies.
With all the embedded linux stuff going on and all the talk I've been expecting more internet appliances, more CPUs in more things, more smart toys and devices. Now that the economy is slipping a little that stuff may have to wait and this could be AMDs way of weathering the storm if they think people won't have as much disposable income for high priced electronic toys.
Re:486 still in production? (Score:1)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2)
Most of the applications you cited barely even need the performance of an 8088. As you hinted, often tasks like this are left to microcontrollers with specialized hardware built-in to the central chip to minimize the chip count, improve reliability, use less power, etc.
Some chips I use only consume one millionth of an amp when it goes to sleep, and unlike desktop systems, they don't wake up groggy or screw up something during the wake-up process.
Re:486 still in production? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are more powerful things than that powered by a 386-class processor.
I used to work at a company that made high-end infrared equipment - the type of stuff you see on Cops or see featured on those shows on Fox (you know, "World's Wildest Police Chases 9"). Their high-end gimbal unit, the balls that are mounted on helicopters, used 386 processors.
And these units were _certainly_ magnitudes more complex than a VCR remote or stereo.
Re:486 still in production? (Score:5, Informative)
Companies who have spent millions of dollars designing and testing an embedded device running on a rock solid, low power 25Mhz SX 486 don't want to go through the whole process again to upgrade their boards (different pins, more power) or even to put in a faster 486 (you might have to actually cripple your application to keep its execution speed constant).
The cost of the CPU isn't really the issue (you often pay more for older, slower chips!), it's the associated re-development cost that keeps the demand for old chips going.
Massive use in ATM market... (Score:2)
These guys aren't used to do floating point math, just to display low-res graphics on ATM screens and operate the ATM's internal mechanism.
Re:Massive use in ATM market... (Score:2, Funny)
put, put, pop. (Score:1)
Re:Massive use in ATM market... (Score:2, Funny)
I can only imagine the frustration of people waiting in line, while the college student who can't afford his own Geforce has finished playing Unreal Tournament on the ATM. (Online through it's POTS/ISDN connection, mind you!)
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2)
Maybe in these faster, better, cheaper days, these requirements were tossed out the window..
Re:486 still in production? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good Opportunity for Intel (Score:1)
ISA is not gone yet (Score:1)
Re:I think . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
That might be an ok view in the home-PC market, but the point was that this move affects the embedded market. The goal of that market is smaller, cheaper, lower power. One motivation to use the 486 might be extremely low engineering costs. Vendors like AmPro (among others) will sell a single-board PC; that might be a good solution if lots of existing code and hardware can be used to save engineering time. Although Megatouch XL uses fancier hardware today, a few years ago many of the bartop touch-screen poker games were using those older 486 processors.
I agree, the AMD 486 disappearing probably really doesn't hurt anything except the x86 embedded market which is fairly small anyway. 68k, MPC8xx, or especially 8051 disappearing would be more devastating (and foolish since they generate tons of sales). However, since theres no reason to change, except the parts going out of production, change really isn't "for the best"
Embedded applications need single-purpose, low-cost, low-power, fast time-to-market, small-footprint solutions. If the 486 is able to run that dishwasher or microwave effectively, your "out with the old in with the new" attitude will only pass on added cost to the consumer.
Fundamentals (Score:3, Informative)
The old standards get in the way of the new, and for that reason alone should they be phased out.
The old standards are far cheaper than the new (one of the first posts is a joke about 486s going for $3, but he's making a good point indirectly). Without the profit margin of using the older technology, the money for research and testing of new products would barely exist for many companies. They must strike a balance between offering new, expensive products, or older, cheaper *and sufficient* technologies. Not every embedded product needs the speed of an Athlon.
Re:Fundamentals (Score:2, Interesting)
So I can empathize with these companies that are going to have to begin to re-think their designs. But at least, as another poster pointed out, AMD gave a years notice to its customers and didn't just yank the plug suddenly.
Re:I think . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
New technology is great because it enables you to do things that were not feasible before, but using a K6 where a 486 will do is just a waste of resources.
Re:I think . . . (Score:1)
Re:I think . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think . . . (Score:1)
To a person who upgrades their computer every five years, this is only a selling point if they believe you. :)
Re:Huh?? (Score:1)
Re:Alternative? (Score:2, Informative)
Those are basically the reasons that my team chose the 386EX in a pc104 for our embedded application (a custom controller for an electrical engineering senior project) Jim
Huh? Vacuum Tubes? (Score:2)
Crotchety Old Man: What's that? I can't buy radio tubes at this drugstore anymore? What'd you do with the tester? This is preposterous, let me speak to the manager!
Sorry, guys. It's the inevitable march of progress.
(Note that, in this case, I turned to the old man, asked him what kind of tube he needed for his old radio, and gave him one from my collection of over 20,000 old radio, TV and industrial tubes.)
You guys in embedded systems have it tough trying to predict the long-term availability of parts for a system that may have cost millions to develop. But you've always predicted pretty well in the past: There's a Z80 in my microwave, which is two years old.
New 486s will always be available somewhere, whether as more clones like AMD, or as new old stock collecting in warehouses.
Re:Huh? Vacuum Tubes? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but many are still in production, and available at your local music store or audiophile shop.
The oldest tube still is mass production is the 6SN7, which is an octal-base dual triode first introduced in 1939. It's often used in old TV sets as a horizontal oscillator, but it was originally designed as an audio tube - a more primitive version of the venerable 12AX7.
In contrast, try to find me a new production 6BK6. Good luck. (Though I have several dozen new old stock 6BK6s, they've been in their original boxes since the 1950s.)
Old parts are easier to buy than many newer ones. Last year's IC is hard to find, but something that has been in production for 10 years often has enough usage to keep it going.Uhh... Unijunction transistors, like the 2N1671, were in *very* popular production 40 years ago. They were discontinued about 20 years ago. At this point, while they're not easy to find, I know of at least 4 places that will sell me a NOS 2N1671 UJT in mass-production quantities. But they're expensive.
By contrast, even Radio Shack sells 2N2222s, which originated about the same time as the 2N1671.
Specialized parts have short lives, general purpose parts stay around.I think Intel saturated the IC market well enough with their processors. I'm sure that new 486s will be available for some time to come. Maybe you'll have to rework the board or design an adapter that will let you put a BGA chip into a ZIF socket; who knows. But I'm sure you'll be able to do it one way or another.
Re:Huh? Vacuum Tubes? (Score:2)
Outside of a few audiophile applications, transistors do the exact same job as a tube while using less power, taking up less space and costing less.
Not true. Lots of places made huge investments in tube-based equipment when it was current, and they drive a lot of the market for vacuum tubes now. Take a 2D21. They're a timer tube, easily replaced by a single transistor, a resistor and a capacitor. Yet the 2D21 is still being made, because there's enough of a market for them in old industrial control equipment.
Lots of people may now be collecting and restoring old tube equipment, audiophiles and musicians may well lust after their even order harmonics, smooth cut off and microphonic properties. But the fact of the matter is that tubes are still all over the place. You won't see them in your local Radio Shack, or in your cubicle (except the tube you're staring at right now), but go to a nuclear power plant sometime. Check out the industrial process control at a steel mill. A radio station's transmitter. An X-ray machine. Radar equipment. They're far from gone.
Comparing modern CPUs to the older ones doesn't give quite the same comparison; while newer CPUs provide orders of magnitude more computing power they are larger, more expensive, generate more heat and use more power to run.Yes. And despite all the disadvantages of the 2D21 and the fact that an enterprising individual could modify the equipment to replace the tube with a transistor and have all the benefits thereof, they don't. They buy a new tube. There's a market for them.
Given the unique nature of each CPU family from days gone by, you'll see someone step up to the plate and start making them as soon as AMD gives it up. Just watch.
Re:Alternative? (Score:2)
ostiguy
Re:AMD (Score:1)
VIA already does (Score:1)
Yup, check this place out (Score:1)
I think you're missing the point. (Score:2)
If you're using a duron for something that could be processed on a 486 then they had better release seti for the embedded device or that's a lot of wasted processing power... Oh wait, even with Seti it's a lot of wasted processing power.