home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!tandon!tdbear
- From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
- Subject: Re: 486SX-33, any good??
- Message-ID: <1992Aug12.164739.1057@tandon.com>
- Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
- References: <13999@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <dregeczi.713578576@sfu.ca>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:47:39 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <dregeczi.713578576@sfu.ca> dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi) writes:
-
- >Never, NEVER buy an SX machine. Basically this chip _is_ the 486DX chip but
- >it has the math processor "cut out" and has other limitations.
-
- The newer plastic package 486SX won't even have the numeric,
- if it makes you feel better about it :)
-
- What are the other limitations? I don't know of any... except
- that Intel initially offered only slower speed parts, but that
- has changed.
-
- >into a 16 bit bus. You're loosing processor power for no reason at all
-
- No... this is a problem with terminology which Intel created
- and then left up to the rest of the world to clear up. SX
- does not mean 16-bits... it means less. In the case of the
- 386sx, it did mean 16-bits and slower (although faster
- processors are on the way... especially like the Cyrix 486SLC
- which is 32-bits of cached CPU on the inside and 16-bits
- outside). For the 486SX, it meant no numeric and for a while
- slower speeds. Now when the so-called (not by intel) 586sx
- hits the market, I'm sure there will be new sorts of
- confusion!
-
-
-
- --
- Tom Barrett (TDBear) tdbear@tandon.com voice 805-378-6207
- Tandon Corporation tdbear@p6.f1006.n102.z1.fidonet.org fax 805-529-8895
- Sr. HW Design Engineer "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!"
- [The views expressed herein may not be shared by the organization of origin]
-