A detailed history of the processor

New Mobile Technology (Intel, 2008 – present)

Processors intended for mobile and embedded use are very much needed in our growing mobile-first world. While Intel has met some of that need with variations of Skylake and other processors, the Intel Atom is more of a true mobile processor, as that’s the goal of the Atom — to meet the needs of mobile equipment.

Intel Atom

The Intel Atom originally launched in 2008, aimed at providing a solution for netbooks and a variety of embedded applications in different industries, such as health care. It was originally designed on the 45nm process, but in 2012 was brought all the way down to the 22nm process.  The first generation of Atom processors were actually based on the Bonnell microarchitecture.

Like we said, the Atom is used in many different embedded applications within a variety of industries. In comparison to the rest of the processors we listed, it’s a pretty unknown processor. But, it does power a large amount of health care equipment as well as equipment for other services we use.

Most variations of the Intel Atom have an on-die GPU. And generally, you’re going to see very small clock speeds with the Intel Atom CPUs. Keep in mind that that’s not a bad thing, though. The major differences between Intel’s Core processors and the Atom is that the Atom was designed for extremely low power and low performance applications. Efficiency is key here. That said, an old Core i3 will knock an Atom out of the park in terms of performance any idea. But, there’s no comparison since the two processors have very different goals.

At least for those that follow technology blogs, the Intel Atom made more of a name for itself when Intel partnered with Google in 2012 to provide support for Google’s Android mobile operating system on Intel x86 processors. That said, Intel began offering a new system-on-a-chip (SoC) platform with its Atom line of processors. Early on, there were some overheating issues, but Intel eventually worked out the issues.

Unfortunately, the SoC market is already a crowded industry with fierce competition from Samsung, Qualcomm, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments and so many more. That said, Intel has essentially given up on the smartphone and tablet, throwing away billions of dollars the company spent trying to expand into it. Like we said, it’s a market with fierce competition, and Intel didn’t see a place for itself there anymore. The most recent development is that they cancelled two new Atom chips intended for the smartphone market — Sofia and Broxton. We haven’t heard anything since then.

Click here: Next Page

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Comments

  1. Your Notes are very clear and Excelent. If you can update to current, it is very good.

    Thank you

  2. Your notes have helped me a lot about something i’ve been looking for in the past week.your Your notes are excelent thanx

  3. Just to point out that you state the 80186 never made it into a personal computer, however i owned a 186 system around 1992 that was made my Research Machines.
    Just thought you would like to know.

    • There was also a Tandy / Radio Shack PC that used an 80186. Just one model that didn’t last for more than a year. Their usual black and silver case. I can’t swear that it was 100% compatible with the usual instruction sets that software depended on.

      • Hugh Wyn Griffith says:

        That Tandy 186 was the Tandy 2000 and its graphics were not 100% compatible with Windows much to the distress of users (I was one when I bought my first “almost-PC” in the UK back in the ’90’s). This caused a lot of ill feeling between users and Tandy. The Users Group launched a monthly called “Orphans” and hated Ed Juge (who died recently) the then CEO of Tandy for not providing any support.

        I was amused a few years ago when Googling on Tandy 2000 to pull up a full page advert for it from one of the well known magazines at that time in which Bill Gates lauded it saying how much his programmers depended on it for its performance! Might explain some of Windows problems if they were using a non-conforming PC !

    • u probably have the one that was made in 1990 then that was the 1 that did make it in2 the personal computer as is later stated in there

  4. The 5×86 was not AMD’s answer to the Pentium, the P5 was. The 5×86 was made to offer a greater performance boost to the millions of 486 PC’s out there, as it would work in (almost) any 486 motherboard with a socketed CPU or overdrive socket.

  5. Chris, It doesn’t say it was AMD’s answer. It was their “competitive response to Intel’s Pentium-class processor”
    on a 486 motherboard.

    Also, not mentioned is why Intel went from a number designation to a name title, the number, was actually the stock number. As I was told by a Intel Rep. at a Comdex show (Vegas) ’94-’95. As Intel tried to sue AMD for copy right infringement. Like a fragrance, you can’t CR. the recipe only the name. They lost on the grounds, you can’t copy right a stock number (80486)! So they, Intel started using name designation (Pentium). As well as AMD did the same.

  6. This is great, im supposed to be at work, but im reading this, just spent quite a while reading it. Its very interesting, Thank You

  7. Bill Buchanan says:

    Correction to information provided on the Intel 80186 (1980).
    This Processor was used in one desk top system but the system did not sell well. The company was Tandy and the model was Tandy 2000. There is a very good page at: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=1219 covering the processor.

  8. Mick Russom says:

    Acorn’s Master 512 PC had a 10MHz 80186 CPU which ran MS-DOS and GEM. I would say this qualifies it as a “PC” running a 80186 running MS-DOS.

  9. Sandy Jelusic says:

    I have at home an pc desktop powered by an 8088 at 3.5 mhz with turbo mode, black-yellow monitor, 20mb disk and only 5.25” floppy. As for dos I think it’s ibm-dos. Not really certain.

  10. Very knowledgeful. Please update with latest changes.

  11. Really your services are good we like it please keep it up.

  12. chelle-marie says:

    that is great i loved the little joke:

    “The following chips are considered the dinosaurs of the computer world. PC’s based on these processors are the kind that usually sit around in the garage or warehouse collecting dust. They are not of much use anymore, but us geeks don’t like throwing them out because they still work. You know who you are.”

    sounds just like my tech teacher becouse he is always complaining about how things have changed and shows us pictures from back when computers still used tapes and how he used to get paid to change the tapes every two hours for a hospitle

  13. Mary Alice Thauvette says:

    This article was posted 23-Mar-01. That was nine years ago. It is time to update the article. Or, at least change the title of the last section from :1999 – Present” to “1999 – March 2001”

  14. what is the significances of the number like 8086 in the processor

  15. thanks for the notess

  16. amandu benard says:

    i love the notes they are precise and straight to key needed aspects thank you very much

  17. roger crouch says:

    This article lacks credibility. The first chip of the series was the 8080, then the 8085 was made (the 5 indicating it only needed +5v and ground instead of +-5 and +12) https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-8085-and-8086 So the only true thing that can be said about the 8086 was that it was 16bit 8080 processor with improved IC features and more command set.

    • Mike Spooner says:

      From certain perspectives, the “first chip of the series” was the 4004 (1971), or pehaps the 8008 (1972), the 4040 (1974), 8080 (1974), or…

      In fact, the 8080 external interface was distinctly different from the 8086, in idea, not just width – for example, 8080 pin 21 (DMA acknowledge).

      The 8086 was (almost) binary compatible with the 8080 for “regular programs” ie: not ones that twiddled ports nor relied on specific interrupt/trap behaviour.

      So where do you draw the line? Where does Bob draw it? WHere does Fiona draw it? All in different places, I suspect.

      The author obviously chose to draw their line at the 8086, probably because delving back beyond the original IBM PC machines might not be worthwhile given a presumed intended audience…

Speak Your Mind

*