home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!hydra.unm.edu!kholland
- From: kholland@hydra.unm.edu (Kiernan Holland)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
- Subject: Re: 486SL dropped, vendors test Cyrix
- Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:23:26 GMT
- Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
- Lines: 59
- Message-ID: <1ireaeINN6uv@lynx.unm.edu>
- References: <1993Jan4.155415.2710@crd.ge.com> <C0E0zB.DwG@inews.Intel.COM> <C0npry.AKI@wimsey.bc.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.unm.edu
-
- In article <C0npry.AKI@wimsey.bc.ca> bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill Henning) writes:
- >In article <C0E0zB.DwG@inews.Intel.COM> rskinner@mipos2.intel.com (Rod Skinner) writes:
- >>Another interesting article comparing the Intel486 SX processor and the
- >>Cyrix SLC is in InfoWorld December 21 page 48 "Reviews/Product
- >>Comparisons: 25-MHz 486 Notebooks". InfoWorld seems to come to the
- >>conclusion that the Intel486 SX processors are 35% to 40% FASTER than
- >>the Cyrix parts. They use several examples but the most powerful is two
- >>machines from TI: TravelMate 4000 WinSX/25 and the TravelMate WinSLC.
- >>Both weigh 6 pounds with battery. Similarly configured machines yield
- >>SYSmark92 results of 75.93 (Intel486 SX) and 47.23 (Cyrix). They
- >>indicate that Cyrix system "posted a SYSmark92 close to 38 percent
- >>slower than its 486SX/25 sibling."
- >>
- >>SYSMark92 suite is a standard set of applications that are stimulated in
- >>a repeatable manner using a set of commands that the BAPCo organization
- >>developed after talking to 5000 users of these applications. The
- >>applications include spreadsheets (123, Excel, Quattro), word processors
- >>(WordPerfect, WFW), data base (Paradox, dBase), presentation software,
- >>graphics applications (Harvard), software development (MSC, Borland C).
- >>These are the things most PC users regularly use and if not the
- >>composite SYSMark92 metric, then the individual catagory metrics should
- >>provide one with the ability to predict system performance on their
- >>workload.
- >>
- >>rod
- >...
- >>
- >>Rod Skinner I speak for myself only.
- >>Intel Corp
- >>2200 Mission College Blvd RN4-21 PH (408) 765-4474
- >>Santa Clara, CA 95052 FAX (408) 765-4920
- >
- >Comparing 486SX performance to 486SLC performance is an apple-vs-orange
- >comparison - the 486SX has a 32 bit bus, and the 486SLC has a 16 bit bus.
-
- I don't think that is right. I think all 486 and 386 CPU's have to be 32-bit
- except for the 386-sx's which are 286's with 386 internals. Nobody
- hardly uses 286's or 386sx's anymore.
-
- >
- >A more balanced comparison would be between a 486SX and a 486DLC at the
- >same clock speed - and I would expect the 486SX to win by about 10% at
- >the same clock speed.
-
- A 486 DLC is the same thing as a SLC, just the SLC is a low-power
- chip for laptops. At least that is what I remembered.
-
- >
- >I am surprised Rod Skinner did not notice the discrepancy.
- >
- >Bill
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
-
-
-