Processors from the 20th century

The AMD 486 40 MHz with 4 MB, coprocessor and Soundblaster 8, or 8+8 was the first multimedia computer I experienced.

Awesome capabilities without going into NASA-level 486

I meant AMF

>never experienced an Amiga

AMD K6-2 500

The K6-2 chips were the shit.

Attached: image.jpg (1000x1003, 164K)

IBM PowerPC 604e from one of their PowerPC-based server series.

Attached: IMG_1559.jpg (3264x2448, 1.33M)

Those are from this century fuckwits.

For general purposes those were the bang for the buck.
Very poor FPUs though, so graphic intensive applications were slow in general compared to similar Pentium II/III.

Ye. AMD captured a huge chunk of the marketshare with the K6-2 series.

No doubt, it was so nice and flexible, that you could even put an underclocked K6-2 on a regular socket 7 motherboard with older chipsets like 430VX, the only issue was the voltage but even then it generally caused no trouble, as long as it could give 2.5v you were fine (cpu used 2.2v), other models with a minimum of 3v might have been too much, not sure.

Plenty of things written for 8mhz. It's worth getting a board that allows for both speeds from a turbo button.
The 486 I have I'm fairly sure when the turbo is used on it it just turns off L2 cache and slows down the buses, does not seem to step down the multiplayer at all since it's still faster then a 33Mhz DX1.

Attached: IMG_0009.jpg (3264x2448, 2.43M)

Intel C4004 (1971)

Attached: Intel_C4004.jpg (6000x4000, 2M)

Texas Instruments TMS1000 (1974)
Used in the Speak & Spell, Simon, Electronic Battleship (earlier versions), and many TI calculators from the 1970s.

Attached: TMS1000NLC.jpg (1822x1264, 191K)

I had one of those but lost it. Still got the RAM that came with it.

If you stick enough of these together you'll have a CPU.

Attached: IMG_1616.jpg (4032x3024, 3.22M)

>90mm
>After the year 2000
Retard

Zilog Z80 (1976)

Attached: DSCF0986.jpg (640x480, 60K)

Intel Pentium Pro
started at 150 MHz, but eventually ramped up to 200 MHz
first Intel processor to feature out-of-order execution and speculative execution, two performance-enhancing features which look ironic in retrospective

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1920x1080, 151K)

Motorola 6800 (1974)

Attached: Motorola_MC6800_microprocessor.jpg (1575x975, 176K)

MOS 6502 (1975)
Legendary god-tier processor, ruled home computing throughout the 1980s alongside the Zilog Z80.

Attached: cpu_mos6502.jpg (1200x639, 75K)

I heard Cyrix are still making CPU after acquired by VIA?

amiga was pretty much dead by that time

They are from 2000s

>you will never be a chippy

Attached: 1524242046432.jpg (186x356, 10K)

VIA's chips are all descendants of the unrelated Centaur C6/WinChip, they just used the Cyrix name for brand recognition. Supposedly they also tried a recycled Cyrix design in early CIIIs but found it to be terrible and quickly discarded it for what would have ended up as the WinChip 4.

The longest living Cyrix design was probably the NS/AMD Geode that carried on through the 2000s.

>AyyMD
I mean, at those times it was really just intel clones without any special sauce of their own

It should have a "turbo" button no?

Those heatspreaders looked like they were cut from a tin can though

Makes an excellent coaster as well :)

nah they were only a second source from the 8086 through the 286
everything after that point was their own work on top of the Intel-licensed foundation, that's how we got things like the 386/486DX-40 and other AMD/Cyrix-exclusive speed grades that had no Intel equivalent

>out-of-order execution and speculative execution, two performance-enhancing features which look ironic in retrospective
>vulnerable to meltdown&spectre
I truly don't believe that shintel didn't know about it for over 20 years. It was just "performance at any cost" bullshit from them. Even now it doesn't really seem like they even intend to fix this in future CPUs, earlier than the whole new architecture they hire engineers for now, so it'll come in like 3-5 years. Until then everything they'll release will be literally broken lol.

Nah, 386/486 were still really just reverse-engineered intels, so simply clones, not their own archs

that's pretty much what I said

based coaster poster

virtualization was still the domain of mainframes and most consumers weren't even running an operating system with proper memory protection to begin with when we started adopting speculative execution on the desktop, and most of the important attack vectors were either underdeveloped or completely non-existent, absolutely nobody (not just Intel) likely even thought of such an obtuse exploit being possible, let alone actually being something worth taking seriously

not every mistake is some pre-planned malicious action, nor even incompetence

Here's my AM386 DX-40 that I saved from a PC recycler.
I got a full allocation of RAM and the BIOS chip to go with it. If I ever find a motherboard for this, I'll be so stocked.

Attached: IMG_20160317_220439.jpg (3264x2448, 2.14M)

underrated

>amiga was dead in '94
Bitch please, 60MHz '060 accelerators were just coming out.

youtube.com/watch?v=TS21EyNkRlw

Itanium. was supposed to usher a new post-x86 era with pure 64-bit computing. in reality never was able to do x86 emulation well enough to push that dream, nor performed well enough at the high end against other 64-bit processors at the time (powerpc and sparc) in the server market.

secure64.com/not-vulnerable-intel-itanium-secure64-sourcet/

>Bill Worley, the chief architect of Itanuim and co-founder of Secure64, was obsessed with computer security. He intrinsically knew this foundational principle, and understood complexity is the enemy
of security. As an early contributor to IBM’s RISC projects, and as the chief architect of HP’s PA RISC family, he also knew a few things about what does and doesn’t pay off in the chip area. He looked at the vast chip areas devoted to out-of-order and speculative execution and knew this was a possible area for attacks. He also knew this could be much better applied to additional caches and execution units, leaving the task of figuring out parallelism to compilers and software tools, explicitly specifying this to the hardware. Thus was born the EPIC architecture: explicitly parallel instruction computing.

your post depresses me. around 2000 I got like 10 386 motherboards, and I figured I'd never have any use for them because I didn't have PSU, case, controller cards, etc, so in the bin they went.

Attached: L_00002378.jpg (900x552, 136K)

>virtualization was still the domain of mainframes
MC68000 supported hardware virtualization. Used in pretty much half the home computers after the mid 80's.

youtube.com/watch?v=Jph0gxzL3UI

In 1994 it was pretty much dying, and by 1996 it was completely dead.
>MC68000 supported hardware virtualization.
Except it didn't, all it did support was 2 execution modes -- supervisor and user, that's it. What you're showing is an emulator, all the work is done by this piece of software.

Commodore was dead. New Amigas were still made till 1997.
Fact check your shit if you're trying to argue online.

>Except it didn't
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68020
Also yes, I said hardware virtualization, not full virtualization (for the 68000). Releases after the original 68000 however did (68010, 68020, etc).
Fact check your shit if you're trying to argue online.

>What you're showing is an emulator
Nope. It's running 68k code directly.
Fact check your shit if you're trying to argue online.

>all the work is done by this piece of software.
The only slight emulation there is for the graphics, storage and audio devices on the virtual Macintosh end. Even the ROM is simply mapped into memory.

Attached: 1525951044338.jpg (1280x720, 79K)

>Commodore was dead. New Amigas were still made till 1997.
And it's user-base shrank so much that it wasn't even worth mentionning by 1995. Yes, it was pretty much dead.
>Also yes, I said hardware virtualization, not full virtualization (for the 68000).
Except it doesn't, it only has privilege . Hell, the article you've posted to prove your point says that the MC68000 can't into virtualization.
>Nope. It's running 68k code directly.
>He says after posting a video about Shapeshifter Macintosh EMULATOR
Are you acting retarded on purpose?
>The only slight emulation there is for the graphics, storage and audio devices on the virtual Macintosh end. Even the ROM is simply mapped into memory.
Yeah, so it's pretty much doing all the work.

>And it's user-base shrank so much that it wasn't even worth mentionning by 1995. Yes, it was pretty much dead.
Not an argument. Amiga was going strong, companies made hardware for it, Amigas themselves where made still till '97.
What are you trying to prove? Tens of thousands of people didn't use Amigas till the late 90's (when they did)?

>Except it doesn't, it only has privilege . Hell, the article you've posted to prove your point says that the MC68000 can't into virtualization.
You didn't even read the article? I think you missed the line where it says the 68000 missed full virtualization because it had a single non privileged instruction while latter CPUs of the same line had this fixed and did indeed support full Popek and Goldberg virtualization.
>"While the 68000 had 'supervisor mode', it did not meet the Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements due to the single instruction 'MOVE from SR' being unprivileged but sensitive. Under the 68010 and later, this was made privileged, to better support virtualization software."
>Under 68010 and later
>Privileged to support Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements
Just like I said >Are you acting retarded on purpose?
It's not an emulator though. Processor specific code is directly executed. It's also explained in the video IIRC.
Name calling is not an argument either way.

>Yeah, so it's pretty much doing all the work.
No, the processor, graphics chipset, sound chip, those are doing all the work. This is no different then VirtualBox or VMware running with a virtual graphics card, storage controller and sound card.

I'm pretty sure this is bait, but at least I'm going to reply so people who have no idea about these things can actually learn and not listen to people with no clue post falseful information.

powerpc > 68k > x86

>And it's user-base shrank so much that it wasn't even worth mentionning by 1995. Yes, it was pretty much dead.
you could go into any computer store and buy amiga hardware in the late 1990s
t. finnfag

>Amiga was going strong
It sure as hell wasn't. Less and less software companies supported it, most peripheral companies didn't suppy amiga drivers with the product, and the one that did make amiga drivers made you download them off their website/bbs.
>What are you trying to prove? Tens of thousands of people didn't use Amigas till the late 90's (when they did)?
And millions of amiga users switched to other platforms before that. What are you trying to prove?
>You didn't even read the article?
I did. And guess what? It says exactly what I said -- that the 68000 supports privileges, but not virtualisation.
>It's not an emulator though.
It is, that's why it's called "Shapeshifter Macintosh Emulator". The amiga and macintosh architectures are completely different, you can't run a macintosh software on an amiga just by mapping the macintosh ROM in memory.
>No, the processor, graphics chipset, sound chip, those are doing all the work.
The macintosh and amiga architectures are completely different. It's the emulator's job of using the paula, denise and agnus the way the macintosh software it's executing would've wanted to use the macintosh graphic, sound and storage.
>I'm pretty sure this is bait, but at least I'm going to reply so people who have no idea about these things can actually learn and not listen to people with no clue post falseful information.
How ironic.