Archives
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
Intel 287XL... From 1986? Or 1996?
Many or most readers of this site probably know that most chips (and PCBs) have the date of manufacture stamped on them, almost always indicating the year and week (usually not the actual date) they were made.
Especially with PCBs, there is no standard for whether the year or week comes first. For pre-millenial hardware that’s not a problem, because it’s unambiguous what’s the year and what’s the week. It’s a bit tricker when something like 0403 is stamped on a PCB—is that week 3 of 2004 or week 4 of 2003? In such cases, both might be plausible and one has to look further.
Chips more or less universally use the year/week convention, but some manufacturers label their products with a two-digit year and others only use a single digit. Intel is of course in the latter category. The above image shows a typical vintage Intel chip with a date code stamped on the bottom side of a chip and etched on the top (a 90 MHz Pentium, manufactured in week 15 of 1995). Note that there are actually three date codes, 515 on top, and 501/515 on the bottom of the chip. Intel makes things slightly difficult by often embedding the date code in a longer string, with the three-digit date code starting at the second position (the first might be a digit or a letter).
Most of the time, it’s easy to tell whether a date code like 927 means week 27 of 1979, 1989, 1999, or 2009. But sometimes the answer is not so obvious.
While researching the somewhat unusual Intel 287XL FPU (a 387 math coprocessor in a 287 package), I came across this web page which shows (in the leftmost column) a 287XL with date code 643 and claims the chip was manufactured in 1986. But that’s impossible because although the copyright printed on the chip is 1980 (8087) and 1986 (80387), the 287XL only came on the market in 1990. It is far too difficult to believe that Intel would have secretly started manufacturing the chips 4 years earlier.
But that only leaves one possibility which is only slightly less strange: The 287XL was manufactured towards the end of 1996. Did Intel really still manufacture 287XLs next to Pentium Pros? The 643 date code certainly suggests that…
Unfortunately, while the introduction of a chip is usually easy to pin down, the date when the production was stopped may be impossible to establish. It’s not something that’s usually announced very loudly, since by definition no one cares much about the chip at that point.
Given that the 287XL was an aftermarket upgrade, it’s quite possible that Intel manufactured the chips for longer than one might expect. Most images of 287XLs available on the Internet show chips manufactured between 1990 and 1993 (again, if Intel started the production in 1986, where are the 1987-1989 chips?).
This page shows a 287XL with the same date code and overall the same markings as the one linked to above, but based on the lack of scuff marks, it must be a different specimen. The site likewise incorrectly claims the FPU is from 1986.
Maybe there was a production run of the 287XL in 1996 because someone wanted to upgrade a bunch of old computers? Or the 287XL was still slowly but steadily selling, so Intel decided to make a few more? Either of those explanations is far more likely than Intel making the chips in 1986 and only selling them years later.
12 Responses to Intel 287XL... From 1986? Or 1996?
I don’t see any thing odd about having a 287XL in 1996. The 80486 was produced through 2007. The 80C86 was being sold to NASA up to around 1999. I don’t have any records showing when the last 80286 variants were sold. More relevant would be the last dates for industrial 386s and 387s since the 287XL is just a 387 in a 287 shell. Since Intel isn’t making a special chip, production runs can be quite small and still profitable.
Upgrading and Repairing PCs, 4th edition (1994): “The original 287 has been discontinued; only the 287XL and XLT are available today.”
The same text remains in the 6th edition (1996).
On the 8th edition (1998) there are no references about the 287XL, except the table about power consumption, temperature, number of transistors and introduction date of FPUs.
It would be interesting to know what 7th edition says.
I don’t think the 287XL was sold as an industrial or military chip though, or was it? For embedded chips, very long production runs are of course normal. Guaranteeing at least a 10 year production run is standard in many areas. Intel made embedded 386s until 2007 from what I can tell.
Anyway, for me a 1996 production date on a 287XL is a bit surprising but entirely plausible. 1986 and 2006 are about equally implausible.
The only reason to keep making anything that long is if someone is willing to pay… So it is possible. But as to who would be buying them? Id imagine they would take 100% delivery of them.
Unless intel shifted all rules when it came to cramming a 387 in a 287’s socket
On other chips, units without Intel logo were manufactured before units stamped with the “dropping e” Intel logo. If I follow this unwritten rule, and I sort the dates found searching for 80287XL images, I get:
Without logo: 023, 025, 027, 030, 032, 039, 044, 045, 103, 111
With logo: 105, 134, 136, 139, 141, 225, 229, 232, 263*, 328, 643
(*) Only “Intel”, instead of “Intel 287tmXL” marking
So, if 0 and 1 are in the 90’s, the 6 could not be years before.
Another question is why Intel didn’t stamp the logo on the 1st units, while some 386 chips had it since 1989.
And for me it’s also strange the gap from mid 1993 till the end of 1996.
The 105 date was on a non-logo chip, sorry for the mistake.
http://www.cpu-galaxy.at/Boards/Mainboards/Mainboards.htm
Nice detective work! It certainly looks like Intel started producing the 287XL in volume in mid-1990 and kept making them until 1993, and then a single batch(?) again in 1996.
BTW is it really 263? That doesn’t really make sense…
The thing with the logos is pretty random. I don’t think there were any real rules.
Yes, 263. Unless it’s a fake photo… http://www.chipdb.org/img-intel-c80287xl-diff-print-4309.htm
On the other hand, Intel chips could have bugs outside, too.
That’s an oddly poor quality print. I wonder if it’s a genuine misprint or a fake.
Fake photo, print or chip, we will never know. I found some new dates for the chips with logo: 137, 313 and 604. This last one reduces the gap, but I still couldn’t find anything starting with 4 or 5.
It may be possible to ask Intel’s archivist for an image of late production 287XL to compare with other images. https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/forms/corporate-archives-contact-us.html I don’t see a contact point to request any form of research by Intel so no chance to ask about final production date.
I suspect that 2287XLs in the mid-90s were not sold in sufficient numbers to use automated stamping machines but instead got the manual procedure used on engineering samples and thus sometimes look odd.
Most of the sites referenced in this article have gone to the great Wayback Machine in the sky. 🙁
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218030741/http://xhoba.x86-guide.com/ru/collection/Intel-80287XL-cpu-no11089.html
I recently acquired a 287XL similar to the one listed on the page above, but with a date code of 648.
It has the dropped E logo and marker L6482971.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.