8088 microprocessor

[oomchu]

Does anyone know of a supplier of 8088 microprocessors? I have acquired a book called 'The 8088 Project Book,' by Robert Grossblatt and would like to work my way through it. However, after about an hour searching I couldn't find any suppliers online. Is the 8088 even produced anymore?

 

[erosennin]

They stopped producing them in 1982. You're slightly out of luck.

 

[picasm]

Old cpus such as the 8088 are sometimes sold on ebay as "collectables".

You may be able to get one there but you would not know if it still works.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Hands up, every body who has thrown old boards away with 8088's on board!.

Really, unless you're wanting to build an old computer, micro-controllers are the way to go, check out PIC's or AVR's.

 

[whiz115]

as performance which is faster? an 8088 or a PIC 16F628?

 

[blueroomelectronics]

as performance which is faster? an 8088 or a PIC 16F628?

Different beasts, one's a microcomputer the other a microcontroller. The PIC is 5MIPs @ 20MHz

 

[Daniek]

You can get a cmos version. I would however have to agree that a microcontroller is a lot easier to use.

https://futurlec.com/80Series/8088.shtml

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

as performance which is faster? an 8088 or a PIC 16F628?

Faster doing what? - at 200nS per instruction a PIC is really VERY, VERY fast, and for many operations will beat an 8088 by a considerable margin (or any processors from that era).

 

[aperri]

I am not sure if its any easier to get a hold of but the Z80 was modeled after the 8088 and contains the 78 - 8088 opcodes as a subset to it's language.

Antney

 

[whiz115]

Different beasts, one's a microcomputer the other a microcontroller. The PIC is 5MIPs @ 20MHz

I speak about processing power... i think 16F628 is way to powerful than
an 8088 processor, maybe 16F628 is comparable with a 80386/16MHz

 

[Analog]

I have designed with the first PICS back in the very early 1990s and at the same time the 808x derivatives. I am puzzled that anyone would want to still use the 8088, because it has zero peripherals. It requires external RAM/EPROM as well. All of these things are included inside the PIC. If you want to really use the 8088, NEC made the V20, which is a clone. Also, Intel made the 80188, which is an 8088 core, with I/O ports on chip, but you still need external RAM/EPROM.

So may I suggest using the PIC, or maybe even a 68HC11/HC12 from Morotola. If you still want to use the 8088, post reasons why, and I would be glad to help.

 

[Hero999]

I speak about processing power... i think 16F628 is way to powerful than
an 8088 processor, maybe 16F628 is comparable with a 80386/16MHz

An 80386 is way more powerful than most MCUs, most instructions execute in one clock cycle, so a 16MHz chip can acheive 16MIPS, it has hardware divide and multiply instructions, indexing registers and can address up to 4GB of memory. Try writing a PIC program to do a signed divide a 64-bit ingeter by a 32-bit integer and get both the quotent and remainder. The 386 can do it in one instruction which takes less than 43 cycles. I wouldn't like to think about how long a PIC would take.

Even an 8086 is more powerful that the baseline PICs.

Disclaimer, I know a lot more about the 80386 than any PIC.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

An 80386 is way more powerful than most MCUs, most instructions execute in one clock cycle, so a 16MHz chip can acheive 16MIPS, it has hardware divide and multiply instructions, indexing registers and can address up to 4GB of memory. Try writing a PIC program to do a signed divide a 64-bit ingeter by a 32-bit integer and get both the quotent and remainder. The 386 can do it in one instruction which takes less than 43 cycles. I wouldn't like to think about how long a PIC would take.

Even an 8086 is more powerful that the baseline PICs.

Disclaimer, I know a lot more about the 80386 than any PIC.

You're picking (no joke intended) things that an 80386 is good at, and a PIC is bad at - try changing a single bit on an output port - a 20MHz PIC can do it in 200nS.

I wasn't aware that a 386 (or any CISC Intel processor) executed most instructions in a single clock cycle?, and I'm pretty sure an 8088 didn't. Certainly the faster replacement, the Z80, didn't - a 6502 running at 1MHz was about the same speed as a Z80 running at 8MHz.

Just done a quick google, as I thought, neither the 386 or 8088 do many (any at all?) single clock cycle instructions, with AAM taking 83 clock cycles on an 8088 and 17 on a 386. I'm pretty sure that an 8088 doesn't run instruction cycles at the external clock speed as well.

Check out

 

[Hero999]

I wasn't aware that a 386 (or any CISC Intel processor) executed most instructions in a single clock cycle?

Sorry I was wrong about that, the 386 takes two clock cycles to execute most basic register to register instructions and a 486 takes one cycle.

This is all pretty old since even a modern single core CPU is pipelined and can sometimes execute more than once instruction at the same time.

CPUs tend to be better at number crunching, and I suppose MCUs are better at controling external hardware, which what they're designed to do.

 

[whiz115]

Well...recently i did my first steps on uCs and i think it's reasonable not to know or understand many things on them (btw like them very much! )

So... blueroomelectronics said that the PIC is 5MIPs @ 20MHz.
An Intel 386DX has 8.5 MIPS at 25 MHz (0.34 MIPS/MHz) Hero999 where did you got 16MIPS for a 386/16MHz?

Although it seems that my initial question was wrong, because it is supposed that we can't compare different cpu architecture performance by their MIPS results, what i really wanted to do is to find is a measurement point which could help me understand how fast a PIC is comparable to a Personal Computer which i am more familiar.

 

[Hero999]

An Intel 386DX has 8.5 MIPS at 25 MHz (0.34 MIPS/MHz) Hero999 where did you got 16MIPS for a 386/16MHz?

I've already admitted I was wrong about that.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

So... blueroomelectronics said that the PIC is 5MIPs @ 20MHz.
An Intel 386DX has 8.5 MIPS at 25 MHz (0.34 MIPS/MHz) Hero999 where did you got 16MIPS for a 386/16MHz?

How on earth can you get 0.34 MIPS per MHz?, doesn't divide down very well?. Or is that an average based on the wildly varying instruction lengths (and timings)?.

Although it seems that my initial question was wrong, because it is supposed that we can't compare different cpu architecture performance by their MIPS results, what i really wanted to do is to find is a measurement point which could help me understand how fast a PIC is comparable to a Personal Computer which i am more familiar.

As you say, you can't make direct comparisons, and they are intended for completely different purposes - also we've been talking of MIPS, but Intel processors have a crippled I/O system that runs at a much reduced speed to the main memory bus, so the processor MIPS doesn't really apply.

Try doing uS I/O timing on an Intel microprocessor, a PIC will 'walk all over it' - but that's what PIC's do. Where a microprocessor comes in to it's own, is applications that need large amounts of memory - which PIC's don't do.

 

[RDL2004]

https://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=52142



It's a pull but maybe that's good enough?

 

[oomchu]

I have designed with the first PICS back in the very early 1990s and at the same time the 808x derivatives. I am puzzled that anyone would want to still use the 8088, because it has zero peripherals. It requires external RAM/EPROM as well. All of these things are included inside the PIC. If you want to really use the 8088, NEC made the V20, which is a clone. Also, Intel made the 80188, which is an 8088 core, with I/O ports on chip, but you still need external RAM/EPROM.

So may I suggest using the PIC, or maybe even a 68HC11/HC12 from Morotola. If you still want to use the 8088, post reasons why, and I would be glad to help.

It's not that I necessarily NEED to use it, it was more to the point that I came across a project book for it, thought it would be fun, and so I decided to see if I could acquire the components.

 

[whiz115]

I've already admitted I was wrong about that.

my answer came a little bit late i guess...


@Nigel_Goodwin i don't know exactly how such thing can be explained, but it's an expression
that also microcontroller manufacturers use it too. check page 3.

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2008/03/doc2314.pdf