spacewar at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 19:49:46 CST 2017
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
> Somewhere along the line, Intel's much ballyhooed 432 platform quietly
> sank under the waves (Micro-mainframe). It was a multi-chip set and
> hideously expensive.
It actually wasn't *that* expensive. Well, the development system was
hideously expensive, but the chips weren't. The General Data Processor
(GDP, the "main" processor) was two chips, which together cost about $100
in modest quantities, and the Interface Processor (IP, an I/O channel
interface that worked in conjunction with a 8-bit or 16-bit microprocessor)
was about $50. While that's a lot more expensive than an 8088, it was
supposed to be a high-end processor, not a low-end processor like the
8088. It's more appropriate to compare it to the early pricing of the
80286 with 80287.
What killed the 432 wasn't that it was expensive, but that it was extremely
slow. Few people would have wanted it even if Intel sold it for $5.
More information about the cctech