home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!monu6!yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au!kevinlu
- From: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lu)
- Subject: Re: 386-40 VS i486SX-25
- Message-ID: <1992Jul29.113033.12000@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
- Sender: news@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Usenet system)
- Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
- References: <1992Jul27.023833.4565@techbook.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:30:33 GMT
- Lines: 36
-
- : >
- : > I beleive he meant that it is acceptable to take the cut in CPU power
- : >(whatever it might be *cough*), and purchase some extra RAM with the money
- : >you would have had to spend on the 486SX/25. I did it myself and I am
- : >happy with my AMD 386/40. Memory is memory... aye?!
- : >
- : >-Rob
- : >reward@eos.ncsu.edu [.sig on vacation also]
- :
- : Cut in CPU power? From My understanding... a 486 is a 386 with an onboard
- : 387 and cache. A 486sx is a 486 that has the 387 disabled, leaving you
- : with what is basically a 386 with a cache.
- : Now, this means he's comparing a 386 40Mhz with a 386 25Mhz with a cache.
- : I leave the decision as to which is better up to y'all...
-
-
- Thats not right is it?
-
- The 486 has different timings (via clock cycles) and there for runs faster
- (not by much) than a 386. Also there are some newer functions on the 486
- (albeit partially useless ones). However i would stay away from an SX,
- because if you want the co-pro. part, Don't you have to buy a chip which
- is in fact a '486 which disable your SX chip?
-
-
- Ta
-
- +----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- | Kevin Lu | Monash University |
- | Email: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | Clayton, Victoria |
- | | Australia |
-
-
-
-
- --
-