At that time, IBM had a strict no single-source part policy. Before IBM would use a part in a computer design, there had to be two sources for the part. It was very common in those days for chip manufacturers to cut license deals to allow other people to make their chips since they'd eventually reverse engineer it anyway.
IBM wanted Intel's 8088 microprocessor (an 8 bit bus version of the 8086) for the IBM PC because they believed (more or less correctly) that it would be easier to port code from the Z80 to the 8088 than any other 16 bit micro of the day (namely the Motorola 68000). The Z80 was the defacto standard for business class machines of the day. IBM wanted to make sure the existing business applications (Wordstar, Dbase, Visicalc, etc) would be available for their new PC. Intel obviously wanted their CPUs in IBM's new computer, so they cut a deal with AMD to second source 8088 (and later 80286) chips. AFAIK, the AMD versions were the exactly the same as what Intel made. When Intel released the 386, they cut off the license deal with AMD and started a game of chicken with IBM who would not release a PS2 PC with a 386 because of the second source policy. IBM had already shot themselves in the foot with the microchannel bus fiasco, and other computer vendors happily filled the void with 386 ISA EISA, and eventually, PCI bus computers. IBM blinked and released a 386 PS2, but it was too little, too late. AMD would eventually clean-room engineer their own X86 chips, and of course, Intel sued them. IIRC, in the trial, it came about that Intel's contract with AMD had promised Intel would give AMD all x86 design during the life of the deal. Intel lost the case. Since Intel had denied AMD the 386, AMD countersued and won a bunch of money as well as license for some key Intel patents. Good grief - I am old to have lived through those days. At least I still remember them. What were we talking about? Hey! Get off my lawn! -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Nostalgia But it also clearly says Intel 1982 at the bottom of the chip label. Were they working together at the time? Joe Heaton Enterprise Server Support CA Department of Fish and Wildlife 1807 13th Street, Suite 201 Sacramento, CA 95811 Desk: (916) 323-1284 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Scott > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Nostalgia > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Rankin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/16/netware_4_anniversary/ > > I'm amused that /The Register/ has a photo of a microchip, captioned > "Intel's 16-bit x86 microprocessor"... the chip is clearly marked with > the AMD name and logo. :) > > -- Ben > >
