SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.righto.com/2020/06/die-shrink-how-intel-scaled-down-8086.html
The revolutionary Intel 8086 microprocessor was introduced 42 years ago this month so I've been studying its die.1 I came across two 8086 dies with different sizes, which reveal details of how a die shrink works. The concept of a die shrink is that as technology improved, a manufacturer could shrink the silicon die, reducing costs and improving performance. But there's more to it than simply scaling down the whole die. Although the internal circuitry can be directly scaled down,2 external-facing features can't shrink as easily. For instance, the bonding pads need a minimum size so wires can be attached, and the power-distribution traces must be large enough for the current. The result is that Intel scaled the interior of the 8086 without change, but the circuitry and pads around the edge of the chip were redesigned.
The photo below shows an 8086 chip from 1979, and a version with a visibly smaller die from 1986.3 (The ceramic lids have been removed to show the silicon dies inside.) In the updated 8086, the internal circuitry was scaled to about 64% of the original size by length, so it took 40% of the original area. The die as a whole wasn't reduced as much; it was about 54% of the original area. (The chip's package was unchanged, the 40-pin DIP package commonly used for microprocessors of that era.)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Sunday June 28 2020, @11:16PM (6 children)
Back in the day the Motorola 68k lineup was superior to the x86 in every way, except maybe price and marketing having access to the IBM PC inner sanctum.
I did assembly for both in the 80s, the 68k was sweet while the x86 was, well, not fun.
Just look at how Intel botched 32 bits with the 286, while the 68k just worked.
As for how they shrunk the die size, is this really worthy of a Soylent article? Of course they shrunk the die size. Back then they halved it every 18 months.
What is the point to this story anyway?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @12:17AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68008 [wikipedia.org] states that the 68008 (68000 with 8-bit data bus) was introduced in 1982, too late for IBM PC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088 [wikipedia.org] states that the Intel 8088 was introduced in 1979, in time for the IBM PC.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by caseih on Monday June 29 2020, @12:21AM (3 children)
Because it's interesting and super nerdy. This is the kind of thing I loved reading about on slashdot. And actually anything Ken sherriff does and writes about is pretty neat. He's a brilliant engineer. Just watch the curiousmarc YouTube videos on reverse engineering and refurbishing a Soviet space clock. Super cool.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday June 29 2020, @08:30AM (2 children)
Yeah, I guess the difference is I lived through it and the trade rags were full of stories on how they shrunk the die, which processes worked and which didn't, etc.
It was interesting then and, I suppose if you're too young to have lived through it, it would be interesting now.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @10:08AM (1 child)
Go back to the Covid and politics articles then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @02:14PM
TBH, I work at a publicly facing job and I'm rather sick of people talking about Covid. If I haven't already had it, I will get it at some point as the number of times I get exposed each week is just too high for me not to get it.
I'm definitely with you that having something, just about anything, that isn't covid related to think about is a nice diversion as covid and the related political nonsense are just too depressing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @02:12PM
The main reason that Intel made the decisions that they did was that they were behind and needed to throw a computer together quickly. As a result they used a bunch of off the shelf components and made the decision to allow MS to license their software to other computer manufacturers. Whether or not that was a wise decision isn't particularly clear cut as IBM has made a fair amount of money selling computers and software over the years and that may not have been the case if they had opted to lock down the OS to where the software they sold wouldn't run on other computers without being ported.