Google-Apps
Hauptmenü

Post a Comment On: Ken Shirriff's blog

"Die analysis of the 8087 math coprocessor's fast bit shifter"

5 Comments -

1 – 5 of 5
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The overall speed-up from using an 8087 instead of software floating routines is likely a good deal better than 100x. Back in the day when I was still in college, the class had an assignment to write a FORTRAN program that did a Fourier analysis. Over the holidays, I wrote the program on a COMPAQ Portable with the standard 4.77 MHz 8088 and no math coprocessor. When I ran the program to test it, I thought I had an infinite loop somewhere after the program did not complete after five or so minutes. After hours of debugging and finding no errors, someone suggested to me to let the program run and take a long break. Much to my surprise, the program completed, successfully and with the correct results, after about half an hour.

When I went to submit the program for grading, the teaching assistants in the lab would run the program with another dataset they had. The computers in the lab were standard IBM PCs with 4.77 MHz 8088 CPUs but they also had the 8087 installed. I was fully prepared to wait 30 minutes but, being that the machines had 8087s, I had guessed the program would complete execution in five or ten minutes.

To my utter shock, the program completed in one or two seconds. The MS-DOS cursor reappeared almost immediately after the TA had pressed the Enter key to run my program.

Of course, this is just one anecdote and I was very inexperienced at writing programs at the time so it is entirely possible that the program I wrote was unusually bad. But that is one of the war stories I've accumulated over the years from developing software where a very surprising result made an indelible impression on me.

May 31, 2020 at 8:32 AM

Anonymous JRD said...

"I couldn't find the original price for the 8087"

In the April and May 1982 issues of his newsletter, Hal Hardenberg reports that the 8087 was finally available from Intel over the counter at $460 for the 8087-3 and an unknown price for the unreleased 8087-5. (As explained in the newsletters, he naturally thought that "8087-3" meant 3Mz, only to be corrected next issue that both parts were 5Hz. The "-5" for the higher-cost part referred to "5 VOLTS over a 10% range," which the available -3 could only do at 5%.)

Hal already had a sample 8087 with a bug list, and was evaluating attaching it to his 68000 design--even though that also would have required an 8086 as a "40-pin clock generator"! He later abandoned that for the much simpler National 16082 part. (The only part of the ill-fated 16032/32016 set to come out on time.)

Ref: http://www.easy68k.com/paulrsm/dg/dg08.htm, http://www.easy68k.com/paulrsm/dg/dg09.htm

May 31, 2020 at 9:24 AM

Blogger Richard said...

It is amazing to see people who use technology today and often do not have access to the information about how it came about.

His work shows the beginnings of computing and helps to understand how it works today.

Congratulations. Once again congratulations on your contribution.

May 31, 2020 at 3:58 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

Meh. 8086 was crap from the start.

68000 could eat it for a breakfast.

It's amazing that they were able to do it with just 2x number of transistors that went into Z-80...

July 1, 2020 at 9:57 AM

Anonymous David Bakin said...

These articles are always fascinating, thank you! I especially like this one as it clearly points out that VLSI design is not just a matter of logic design on steriods. The dual-direction shifter (with your explanation of pass-transistor logic) and the interleaved metal/poly wires in the shifter are two very clear examples of how you really need to understand the technology holistically.

July 8, 2020 at 7:58 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot