Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!maccs!cs4g6ag From: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Brain-dead 286 - summary Message-ID: <2606C1D8.4834@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> Date: 20 Mar 90 23:50:48 GMT Reply-To: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Lines: 26 In article <18603@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: $Yes, and no.....SPEED!!!!! When Intel made the 386, they did it right-- $as opposed to 286---Even Intel wishes the 286 didn't exist.....There are $no new modes in the 486 over the 386--You are right in saying that no $software will take advantage of the 486 because from the programming $point of view there is none. Well, code generated with the 486 in mind can be tweaked to run 10-15% faster than code not tweaked with the 486 in mind ... this isn't a new programming feature, but it is affected by your programming (or your compiler's optimization). $Not only does the 486 include the CPU, but it includes the CACHE and $FPU! The cost of the 486 chip, about $1000 in qty., is easily cheaper $than the 386, 387, cache controller, and cache memory it replaces! Not Yes, having that on-chip cache is wonderful ... but don't forget, it's only an 8K cache, whereas cached 386 systems typically have 32, 64, or 128K caches. So if you want the same size cache as you'd have on your 386, you _will_ have to add it yourself. Still, an 8K cache is a big step forward. -- Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n"; **************************************************************************** "So sorry, I never meant to break your heart ... but you broke mine."