Editing Intel (section)

===Early x86 processors and the IBM PC===
[[File:Intel 8742 153056995.jpg|thumb|The [[die (integrated circuit)|die]] from an Intel 8742, an [[8-bit computing|8-bit]] microcontroller that includes a [[CPU]] running at 12&nbsp;MHz, 128 bytes of [[RAM]], 2048 bytes of [[EPROM]], and [[Input/output|I/O]] in the same chip]]

Despite the ultimate importance of the microprocessor, the [[Intel 4004|4004]] and its successors the [[Intel 8008|8008]] and the [[Intel 8080|8080]] were never major revenue contributors at Intel.

In 1975, the company had started a project to develop a highly advanced 32-bit microprocessor, finally released in 1981 as the [[Intel iAPX 432]]. The project was too ambitious and the processor was never able to meet its performance objectives, and it failed in the marketplace. (Intel eventually extended the [[x86|x86 architecture]] to 32 bits instead.)<ref>{{cite web
  |last=Maliniak
  |first=Lisa
  |title=Ten Notable Flops: Learning From Mistakes
  |work=Electronic Design Online
  |date=October 21, 2002
|url=http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839
  |access-date=November 27, 2007
|url-status=dead
  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216121817/http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839
  |archive-date=December 16, 2008

  }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
  |last=Dvorak
  |first=John C.
  |author-link=John C. Dvorak
  |title=What Ever Happened to... Intel's Dream Chip?
  |date=February 1997
  |url=http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/intel/iapx432/dreamchip.html
  |access-date=November 27, 2007
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071018060554/http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/intel/iapx432/dreamchip.html
  |archive-date=October 18, 2007
|url-status=dead
  }}</ref>

As the next processor, the [[Intel 8086|8086]] (and its variant the 8088) was completed in 1978, Intel embarked on a major marketing and sales campaign for that chip nicknamed "Operation Crush", and intended to win as many customers for the processor as possible. One design win was the newly created [[IBM PC]] division, though the importance of this was not fully realized at the time.

[[IBM]] introduced its personal computer in 1981, and it was rapidly successful. In 1982, Intel created the [[Intel 80286|80286]] microprocessor, which, two years later, was used in the [[IBM Personal Computer/AT|IBM PC/AT]]. [[Compaq]], the first IBM PC "clone" manufacturer, produced a desktop system based on the faster 80286 processor in 1985 and in 1986 quickly followed with the first [[Intel 80386|80386]]-based system, beating IBM and establishing a competitive market for PC-compatible systems and setting up Intel as a key [[component supplier]].

====386 microprocessor====
During this period [[Andrew Grove]] dramatically redirected the company, closing much of its [[DRAM]] business and directing resources to the [[microprocessor]] business. Of perhaps greater importance was his decision to "single-source" the 386 microprocessor. Prior to this, microprocessor manufacturing was in its infancy, and manufacturing problems frequently reduced or stopped production, interrupting supplies to customers. To mitigate this risk, these customers typically insisted that multiple manufacturers produce chips they could use to ensure a consistent supply. The 8080 and 8086-series microprocessors were produced by several companies, notably AMD, with which Intel had a technology-sharing contract.
[[File:Intel chips 386 387.jpg|thumb|The 386 with the optional 387 co-processor]]
Grove made the decision not to license the 386 design to other manufacturers, instead, producing it in three geographically distinct factories: [[Santa Clara, California]]; [[Hillsboro, Oregon]]; and [[Chandler, Arizona|Chandler]], a suburb of [[Phoenix, Arizona]]. He convinced customers that this would ensure consistent delivery. In doing this, Intel breached its contract with AMD, which sued and was paid millions of dollars in damages but could not manufacture new Intel CPU designs any longer. (Instead, AMD started to develop and manufacture its own competing x86 designs.)

As the success of [[Compaq]]'s [[Compaq Deskpro 386|Deskpro 386]] established the 386 as the dominant CPU choice, Intel achieved a position of near-exclusive dominance as its supplier. Profits from this funded rapid development of both higher-performance chip designs and higher-performance manufacturing capabilities, propelling Intel to a position of unquestioned leadership by the early 1990s.

====486, Pentium, and Itanium====
Intel introduced the [[Intel 80486|486]] microprocessor in 1989, and in 1990 established a second design team, designing the processors code-named "[[P5 (microarchitecture)|P5]]" and "[[P6 (microarchitecture)|P6]]" in parallel and committing to a major new processor every two years, versus the four or more years such designs had previously taken. The P5 project was earlier known as "Operation Bicycle", referring to the cycles of the processor through two parallel execution pipelines. The P5 was introduced in 1993 as the Intel [[Pentium]], substituting a registered trademark name for the former part number. (Numbers, such as 486, cannot be legally registered as trademarks in the United States.) The P6 followed in 1995 as the [[Pentium Pro]] and improved into the [[Pentium II]] in 1997. New architectures were developed alternately in [[Santa Clara, California]] and [[Hillsboro, Oregon]].

The Santa Clara design team embarked in 1993 on a successor to the [[x86|x86 architecture]], codenamed "P7". The first attempt was dropped a year later but quickly revived in a cooperative program with [[Hewlett-Packard]] engineers, though Intel soon took over primary design responsibility. The resulting implementation of the [[Itanium|IA-64]] 64-bit architecture was the [[Itanium]], finally introduced in June 2001. The Itanium's performance running legacy x86 code did not meet expectations, and it failed to compete effectively with [[x86-64]], which was AMD's 64-bit extension of the 32-bit x86 architecture (Intel uses the name '''Intel 64''', previously '''EM64T'''). In 2017, Intel announced that the [[Kittson (processor)|Itanium 9700 series]] (Kittson) would be the last Itanium chips produced.<ref name="Davis 2017">{{cite web
  |url = https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/evolution-mission-critical-computing/
  |title = The Evolution of Mission Critical Computing
  |access-date = May 11, 2017
  |df = mdy-all
  |last = Davis
  |first = Lisa M.
  |date = May 11, 2017
  |work = Intel
  |quote = ...the 9700 series will be the last Intel Itanium processor.
  |archive-date = May 17, 2017
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170517090556/https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/evolution-mission-critical-computing/
  |url-status = live
  }}</ref><ref name="IA-PCWorld">{{cite web|title=Intel's Itanium, once destined to replace x86 processors in PCs, hits end of line|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/3196080/data-center/intels-itanium-once-destined-to-replace-x86-in-pcs-hits-end-of-line.html|website=PCWorld|access-date=May 15, 2017|language=en|date=May 11, 2017|archive-date=May 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515051735/http://www.pcworld.com/article/3196080/data-center/intels-itanium-once-destined-to-replace-x86-in-pcs-hits-end-of-line.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Hillsboro team designed the [[Pentium 4#Willamette|Willamette]] processors (initially code-named P68), which were marketed as the Pentium 4.

During this period, Intel undertook two major supporting advertising campaigns. The first campaign, the 1991 "Intel Inside" marketing and branding campaign, is widely known and has become synonymous with Intel itself. The idea of "[[ingredient branding]]" was new at the time, with only [[NutraSweet]] and a few others making attempts to do so.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Richard S. Tedlow|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zQamXENAalkC&pg=RA1-PA256|title=Andy Grove: The Life and Times of an American Business Icon|year=2007|isbn=978-1-59184-182-1|page=256| publisher=Penguin }}</ref> One of the key architects of the marketing team was the head of the microprocessor division, [[David House (computer designer)|David House]].<ref>{{Cite journal |date=January 22, 2001 |title=Former Bay CEO to head startup |journal=Network World |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=8}}</ref> He coined the slogan "Intel Inside".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marshall |first=Jonathan |date=December 5, 1997 |title=An Organized House / Ex-Intel exec rebuilds Bay Networks with focus |url=https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/An-Organized-House-Ex-Intel-exec-rebuilds-Bay-2791338.php |access-date=July 7, 2023 |website=SFGATE |language=en-US |archive-date=June 26, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230626225021/https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/An-Organized-House-Ex-Intel-exec-rebuilds-Bay-2791338.php |url-status=live }}</ref> This campaign established Intel, which had been a component supplier little-known outside the PC industry, as a household name.

The second campaign, Intel's Systems Group, which began in the early 1990s, showcased manufacturing of PC [[motherboard]]s, the main board component of a personal computer, and the one into which the processor (CPU) and memory (RAM) chips are plugged.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wilson|first=Tracy V.|date=July 20, 2005|title=HowStuffWorks "How Motherboards Work"|url=http://computer.howstuffworks.com/motherboard.htm|access-date=July 29, 2010|publisher=Computer.howstuffworks.com|archive-date=August 13, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100813135305/http://computer.howstuffworks.com/motherboard.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> The Systems Group campaign was lesser known than the Intel Inside campaign.

Shortly after, Intel began manufacturing fully configured "[[white box (computer hardware)|white box]]" systems for the dozens of PC clone companies that rapidly sprang up.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Intel Corporation The Architecture That Would Not Die |url=https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/intel-corporation-the-architecture-that-would-not-die/ |access-date=December 13, 2023 |website=The Lawyers & Jurists |archive-date=December 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231213044237/https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/intel-corporation-the-architecture-that-would-not-die/ |url-status=live }}</ref> At its peak in the mid-1990s, Intel manufactured over 15% of all PCs, making it the third-largest supplier at the time.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}}

During the 1990s, [[Intel Architecture Labs]] (IAL) was responsible for many of the hardware innovations for the PC, including the [[Conventional PCI|PCI]] Bus, the [[PCI Express]] (PCIe) bus, and [[Universal Serial Bus]] (USB). IAL's software efforts met with a more mixed fate; its video and graphics software was important in the development of software digital video,{{Citation needed|date=February 2011}} but later its efforts were largely overshadowed by competition from [[Microsoft]]. The competition between Intel and Microsoft was revealed in testimony by then IAL Vice-president [[Steven McGeady]] at the [[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)|Microsoft antitrust trial]] (''United States v. Microsoft Corp.'').

====Pentium flaw====
{{Main|Pentium FDIV bug}}
In June 1994, Intel engineers discovered a flaw in the [[floating-point]] math subsection of the [[P5 (microarchitecture)|P5]] [[Pentium|Pentium microprocessor]]. Under certain data-dependent conditions, the low-order bits of the result of a floating-point division would be incorrect. The error could compound in subsequent calculations. Intel corrected the error in a future chip revision, and under public pressure it issued a total recall and replaced the defective Pentium CPUs (which were limited to some 60, 66, 75, 90, and 100&nbsp;MHz [[Pentium FDIV bug#Affected models|models]]) on customer request.

The [[software bug|bug]] was discovered independently in October 1994 by Thomas Nicely, Professor of Mathematics at [[Lynchburg College]]. He contacted Intel but received no response. On October 30, he posted a message about his finding on the Internet.<ref name="Nicely-email">{{cite web |url=http://www.emery.com/nicely.htm |title=Thomas Nicely's Pentium email |access-date=July 12, 2007 |last=Nicely |first=Thomas |date=October 30, 1994 |publisher=Vince Emery Productions |archive-date=January 16, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116171317/http://www.emery.com/nicely.htm |url-status=dead}}</ref> Word of the bug spread quickly and reached the industry press. The bug was easy to replicate; a user could enter specific numbers into the calculator on the operating system. Consequently, many users did not accept Intel's statements that the error was minor and "not even an erratum". During Thanksgiving, in 1994, ''[[The New York Times]]'' ran a piece by journalist [[John Markoff]] spotlighting the error. Intel changed its position and offered to replace every chip, quickly putting in place a large end-user [[Technical support|support]] organization. This resulted in a $475 million charge against Intel's 1994 [[revenue]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trnicely.net/#PENT|title=Personal website of Dr. Nicely, who discovered the bug|last=Nicely|first=Thomas|access-date=April 6, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160712050001/http://www.trnicely.net/#PENT|archive-date=July 12, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> Nicely later learned that Intel had discovered the FDIV bug in its own testing a few months before him (but had decided not to inform customers).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trnicely.net/pentbug/pentbug.html|title="Pentium FDIV flaw" FAQ email from Dr. Nicely|last=Nicely|first=Thomas|access-date=May 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313230545/http://www.trnicely.net/pentbug/pentbug.html|archive-date=March 13, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The "Pentium flaw" incident, Intel's response to it, and the surrounding media coverage propelled Intel from being a technology supplier generally unknown to most computer users to a household name. Dovetailing with an uptick in the "Intel Inside" campaign, the episode is considered to have been a positive event for Intel, changing some of its business practices to be more end-user focused and generating substantial public awareness, while avoiding a lasting negative impression.<ref>Grove, Andrew and Burgleman, Robert; ''Strategy Is Destiny: How Strategy-Making Shapes a Company's Future'', 2001, Free Press<!--needs page number--></ref>