What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhich Linux or BSD distributions do still support i386, i486 or i586 CPUs?Were there 8086 coprocessors other than the 8087?When specifying Intel 80x86 instruction execution time, what is included in the cycle count?Are there any articles elucidating the history of the POPCOUNT instruction?Intel 8080 - Behaviour of the carry bit when comparing a value with 0Is there any reason to chose ES, FS, or GS over the others in real mode?How do you put a 286 in Protected Mode?Which pre-IEEE computers had a single precision FPU and implemented double precision floats in software?How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?How did 2-chip CPUs work?What can an 8086 CPU do if an x87 floating-point coprocessor is attached to it?
Pascal records and Mathematica programming
Match Roman Numerals
Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?
Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?
How can I add encounters in the Lost Mine of Phandelver campaign without giving PCs too much XP?
Worn-tile Scrabble
Pretty sure I'm over complicating my loops but unsure how to simplify
Are Newtonian Mechanics considered to be 'falsified'?
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
Business and Tourism Trip to Schengen Area. Which consulate should I approach for visa?
What information about me do stores get via my credit card?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
I have applied to work permit while staying as a student. What happens if my student visa is cancelled?
Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?
What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?
How to substitute curly brackets with round brackets in a grid of list
What force causes entropy to increase?
How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure
Correct punctuation for showing a character's confusion
Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
Hello, Goodbye, Adios, Aloha
What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?
What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhich Linux or BSD distributions do still support i386, i486 or i586 CPUs?Were there 8086 coprocessors other than the 8087?When specifying Intel 80x86 instruction execution time, what is included in the cycle count?Are there any articles elucidating the history of the POPCOUNT instruction?Intel 8080 - Behaviour of the carry bit when comparing a value with 0Is there any reason to chose ES, FS, or GS over the others in real mode?How do you put a 286 in Protected Mode?Which pre-IEEE computers had a single precision FPU and implemented double precision floats in software?How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?How did 2-chip CPUs work?What can an 8086 CPU do if an x87 floating-point coprocessor is attached to it?
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
2 hours ago
1
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
2 hours ago
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
54 mins ago
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
5 mins ago
add a comment |
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This Wikipedia page says the following:
Most x86 processors since the Intel 80486 have had these x87
instructions implemented in the main CPU
So the above quote implies that some CPUs that were released after the Intel 80486 CPU did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in.
But what was the last CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
history intel floating-point cpu x86
history intel floating-point cpu x86
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
edited 1 hour ago
Toby Speight
300312
300312
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
asked 9 hours ago
user12280user12280
533
533
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
2 hours ago
1
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
2 hours ago
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
54 mins ago
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
5 mins ago
add a comment |
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
2 hours ago
1
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
2 hours ago
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
54 mins ago
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
5 mins ago
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
2 hours ago
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
2 hours ago
1
1
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
2 hours ago
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
2 hours ago
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
54 mins ago
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
54 mins ago
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
5 mins ago
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
5 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
2
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9660%2fwhat-was-the-last-x86-cpu-that-did-not-have-the-x87-floating-point-unit-built-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
add a comment |
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
add a comment |
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
As far as I’m aware, the last FPU-less x86-compatible CPU which could still be considered general-purpose is the Vortex86SX, released in 2007 and still available now. This is a Pentium-class CPU, capable of running any Pentium code which doesn’t require an FPU. It is targeted at embedded applications, with up to 512 MiB of RAM, and includes a PCI bus, USB, Ethernet, IDE, etc. It can run Linux.
Intel themselves produced FPU-less x86-compatible micro-controllers later still, in 2015: the Quark D1000 and D2000, 32 MHz Pentium-class MCUs with 8 KiB and 32 KiB of RAM respectively, and the Quark SE C1000, with 80 KiB of RAM. These were opportunistically targeted at IoT applications, and low-power applications in general. It is still possible to buy them, for a few more months.
The last x86-compatible desktop CPU designed without an FPU was probably NexGen’s Nx586, introduced in 1994, which was supposed to compete with the Intel Pentium but didn’t integrate an FPU initially. The last FPU-less CPU in that range was the Nx586-P133, introduced in late 1995.
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
edited 2 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
answered 8 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
40.1k8163174
40.1k8163174
add a comment |
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
2
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
2
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
add a comment |
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
All Intel x86 CPUs since the 80486 line have included floating point instructions, i.e. everything from the Pentium* onward. So the last Intel processor to lack an on-board floating-point unit (FPU) was the 80486SX (and the embedded 80486GX).
Other manufacturers, who made 486-compatible processors, continued making non-FPU chips, aiming for the budget market. These include Cyrix's Cx486SLC, and AMD's AM486SX. A 66MHz version of the latter, the Am486SX2-66, was released in 1994, a year after Intel had released its first Pentium processor.
In order to compete with the Pentium range in the PC market, third-party manufacturers effectively had to include an on-board FPU, so there were no desktop "586" chips without floating-point instructions. Embedded devices tend to operate on a longer timescale, however.
I expect that the last manufactured x86 CPU that lacked floating-point instructions will have been an embedded chip such as the 80486GX, or the Vortex86SX mentioned in another answer.
* for further reading, see the Pentium FDIV bug
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
edited 3 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
answered 8 hours ago
KazKaz
2,511943
2,511943
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
2
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
2
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
The other answer links to the Wikipedia article on a 3rd party Pentium class chip that doesn't support FP
– Martin Bonner
5 hours ago
2
2
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
Upvoted both these answers, because knowledge is being aware that tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad ;)
– Muzer
4 hours ago
add a comment |
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user12280 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9660%2fwhat-was-the-last-x86-cpu-that-did-not-have-the-x87-floating-point-unit-built-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
A few years ago intel introduced a set of embedded 32 Bit CPUs. THey where refered to as 486 alike or Pentium alike. I've been told from one of the project managers that the core is derivated from a modern x86 design, somewhat related to the many core implementation a few years ago, not a classic Pentium.
– Raffzahn
2 hours ago
1
@Raffzahn that was Quark, see my answer.
– Stephen Kitt
2 hours ago
It migh as well be noteworthy that new x86 implementations are not impossible, so asking for a 'last' should be accomodated by 'so far', shouldn't it?
– Raffzahn
54 mins ago
There is also the 486SX vs 486DX difference, from another Wikipedia page, where the FPU is disabled on the SX version.
– Chris O
5 mins ago