home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
- Path: sparky!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|inews.Intel.COM!dmccart
- From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
- Subject: Re: Why shouldn't I buy Cyrix
- Message-ID: <Bu9urG.7zu@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
- Sender: news@nntp-sc.Intel.COM (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: gomez
- Organization: The NorWEB Federation
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
- References: <81.327.uupcb@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:16:27 GMT
- Lines: 35
-
- The following are just my opinions and not Intel's.
-
- Daniel Moran (daniel.moran@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us) wrote:
- > jas37876@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John A. Slagel) writes:
- >> I can, all things considered, upgrade my non-coprocessed 386-33,
- >> to the Cyrix 486-33 for ~$150.
- >> Is there problems with this chip ??
- > Ditto on that request. I'm extremely interested in this chip. My
- > understanding is that it does not have an on-board math coprocessor; but
- > I'm more interested in the cache and pipelining anyway. I'm running a
- > clone motherboard with a very recent AMI BIOS. Any comments? Anyone
- > who's done this upgrade?
-
-
- From what I've read, the Cyrix chip:
-
- 1) Has a hardware multiplier instead of a full-blown math co-processor
- 2) Has a 1K cache instead of the 8K on an Intel 486
- 3) Is pin-compatible with Intel 386's, although you can't just pop out your
- i386 and plop in the Cyrix chip; you will have to replace at least the
- BIOS and probably the motherboard too.
-
- If you've got a new BIOS, you're in better shape than someone
- who doesn't. But I, personally, wouldn't count on anything working
- exactly like it used to.
-
- (Naturally I'm a tad biased. But I've formed this view after reading
- around, and I think it's about as un-biased as it can be.)
-
-
- --
- D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
- "You'll find that people will forgive truly huge mistakes when they are
- freely admitted, and pursue tiny transgressions with fury when
- they are lied about." --Jerry Anderson, alt.security, 6/24/92
-