Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!bellcore!nontech!lestat
From: lestat@nontech.Berkeley.EDU (David Gonzalez-Nieves)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Whis is fastest 386/33 or 486/25 ?
Message-ID: <25264@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 12 Jul 90 20:13:57 GMT
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: lestat@nontech.Berkeley.EDU (David Gonzalez-Nieves)
Organization: Bellcore
Lines: 32


>From article <1990Jul11.161138.13630@dvinci.usask.ca>, by
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey):
>> From article <1990Jul5.205440.23370@ecn.purdue.edu>, by
jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore):
>> But at the same clock speed, the 486 chip appears to
>> be about twice as fast as the 386 chip (in real mode at least)
>> 
>> - Kevin Lowey     
>There would be no difference in speed between a 386 with a math
>coprocessor and a 486.  The 486 chip is a 386 + the math coprocessor in
>one.  Intel considers the 486 as a part of the 386 family.


	That is not exactly right, the 486 has been designed using newer 
tecnology than the 386/387. The amount of cycles required for operations
in the 486 has been reduced. Also since there is an internal connection
between the 486 and it 387 equivalent, it takes less time for floating
point operations. 
	
	The 8K internal cache is also quicker than having an external cache of
the same size.
	
	The 486 should be quicker than a 386/387/8k SRAM combination running at
the same speed.

----------------------------

David Gonzalez
Bellcore
Summer Intern
email:	lestat@ctt.bellcore