• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Pentium 4

Intel Atom was sold in 32-bit only variants even later. But it does seem like Intel still sells 32-bit x86 for the embedded applications. I think they are all loosely derived from the Pentium M. So the Pentium 4 was just the NetBurst era, and x86 32-bit really does continue to live on.

My 32-bit atom is quite a usable machine for even today. So it continues to remain the question if the P4 is now obsolete and has some kind of status as vintage, or just another machine. I think it's like how the 286es were. I could find a use for one, but I don't want a 100 of them. So you know what my perceived monetary value would be.
 
Pentium 4 sounds modern to my ears to this day, I wouldn't put it to age/nostalgia or whatever, just the fact that progress has slowed down a bit at least CPUs considered. I run a 9 year old computer, and it still serves me well for all the modern software. The current highend CPUs are quite faster, but to show off the capability, they need to be paired with something for a certain task, nominally a fast GPU.

9 years is what, Pentium 2 to quad Core 2 Duo 64-bit? Stuff moved on faster before, at least considering coupling between hardware and software. In 2006 you couldn't run a P2 for normal desktop let alone a workstation.

So we're kinda back in the 80s where you don't need to upgrade for years, if you don't have a new task at hand. Which is IMO good. I had twice more builds from 1997 to 2001 than I did in entire 21st century.
 
hunterjwizzard said:
No Duos were 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Specifically the first-gen Yonah was 32 bit. These came in several flavors, and there was also a related low-power “Xeon” core. All of them are pretty rare, the most common machines with them were probably the first gen Intel MacBooks and iMacs. (All of these were upgraded to Core 2’s within like a year with no physical changes, so you’d probably have a hard time finding one today.)

the3dfxdude said:
But it does seem like Intel still sells 32-bit x86 for the embedded applications. I think they are all loosely derived from the Pentium M.
Click to expand...

Do you know of an example of one? I was under the impression Intel pretty much went all in on the Atom for the embedded space, and all current Atoms are 64 bit.
 
Eudimorphodon said:
Do you know of an example of one? I was under the impression Intel pretty much went all in on the Atom for the embedded space, and all current Atoms are 64 bit.
Click to expand...
Intel was still manufacturing i386s for embedded applications as late as 2009. I'd be shocked if they weren't still spitting out 32 bit CPUs on the sly.
 
www.quora.com

What was the last 32-bit Intel CPU?

Answer (1 of 4): Intel still makes 32-bit x86 processors for embedded systems: the Quark series of microcontrollers. The most recent ones were introduced late in 2015. The company recently discontinued the Curie series; maker products that incorporated Curie included the Edison and the Arduino 10...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Again, splitting hairs, I guess.
 
hunterjwizzard said:
Intel was still manufacturing i386s for embedded applications as late as 2009. I'd be shocked if they weren't still spitting out 32 bit CPUs on the sly.
Click to expand...

Companies still buy 6502s for use in life support equipment because they have 40 year old certifications in hand that say it’s safe to use for that application. That doesn’t mean it’s really a relevant option for new designs.

Chuck(G) said:
www.quora.com

What was the last 32-bit Intel CPU?

Answer (1 of 4): Intel still makes 32-bit x86 processors for embedded systems: the Quark series of microcontrollers. The most recent ones were introduced late in 2015. The company recently discontinued the Curie series; maker products that incorporated Curie included the Edison and the Arduino 10...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Again, splitting hairs, I guess.
Click to expand...

I have vague memories of them pushing a dev board for IoT applications based on that, but… yeah, nine years ago.

Edit: looks like it’s thoroughly dead as a stand-alone product:

en.wikipedia.org

Intel Quark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
2038.png
 
3lectr1c said:
and I highly doubt any one person here has an interest in every single computer platform covered by this LARGE forum.
Click to expand...
You can count me as one. So, there is at least one. And I'm sure there are many others.

We just like computers, especially old computers. I'm fascinated by the variability and inventiveness represented by all the computer platforms.

Personally, I've enjoyed this thread. But I most definitely do NOT place the P4 in the "Vintage" category. My idea of "Vintage" ends with the era of the 80486.

Some of us old guys do pick fun sometimes at the youth who tend to forget that this stuff is just for fun, and for the interest in the historical significance with respect to computing in general. I see no sense in making political statements or getting bent out of shape because someone has disrespected one of our favorite processors, or whatever.

If I grew up with a "speccy" as my personal computer I may tend to think highly of it in my own life. But it was a pretty bad example of a computer and it deserves to get laughed at. (Don't get mad at me now you speccy lovers!). There would be no sense in lashing out at the attacks since there is basis for them. Just have fun with it.

Seaken
 
Just because it's from your childhood it doesn't mean it's vintage, but people approach it that way. A game from 2008 is not vintage, regardless of your age. In 2008 a 1993 game was vintage. Progress doesn't work linearly.
 
Zare said:
Just because it's from your childhood it doesn't mean it's vintage, but people approach it that way. A game from 2008 is not vintage, regardless of your age. In 2008 a 1993 game was vintage. Progress doesn't work linearly.
Click to expand...
I think for electronics at least "vintage" has more to do with epoch than linear age. PC games are no longer released on physical media, so I would call any game with a physical, non-DRM-locked release "vintage". This is only because the era of physical media is over.
 
the3dfxdude said:
Well quark might have died, but you never know where the pesky 32-bit core might still show up:
Click to expand...

Sure, but it’s completely disingenuous to say that Intel is “selling it for embedded applications”. It’s literally buried inside of a chip that the only reason that exists to buy it is to support a 64 bit desktop/laptop CPU.
 
Eudimorphodon said:
Sure, but it’s completely disingenuous to say that Intel is “selling it for embedded applications”. It’s literally buried inside of a chip that the only reason that exists to buy it is to support a 64 bit desktop/laptop CPU.
Click to expand...

They did sell quark for embedded applications outside of their own designs. The original question I answered was how late can you get x86 32-bit cores after Pentium 4.
 
the3dfxdude said:
They did sell quark for embedded applications outside of their own designs.
Click to expand...

Yes, they *did*, but the answer was phrased in current tense, not past. *shrug* I mean, sure, I guess the current CMSE is still using the quark core so by splitting the hairs fine enough you can argue that Intel is still "selling" a lot of 32 bit-only cores, but it's kind of a "if a tree falls in the woods but no one is there to hear it" situation.(*)

If we remove the "Intel" limitation to this question then, sure, there are definitely vendors still selling new-build 32 bit x86 CPUs, so apparently someone still finds them useful. The Vortex86 line of SoCs is a well known example. There are a few other roughly 486-class SoCs out there, like this... I can see a few other possible leads, but their websites are in Chinese. I was wondering if the Geode was still alive, but looks like it was finally canned in 2019.

(* I guess we should chuck the asterisk in here that even though Intel isn't "selling" any 32 bit CPUs anymore according to any of their catalogs it's definitely possible they could have some large industrial customers that are still getting some long-discontinued products under the table; that sort of thing is why they were still selling 386s until 2009. Anything's possible if Quark ended up inside some kind of military drone or whatever.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top