Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!motcid!dhiman
From: dhiman@motcid.UUCP (Ravinder Dhiman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: '386's SX's and DX's
Message-ID: <4292@cocoa11.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 90 23:44:58 GMT
References: <31122@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL
Lines: 30

v081nhdb@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Nina Banerjee) writes:

>If you are going to get a '386, get a REAL '386! Namely a DX. The SX's are
>actually 16 bit microprocessors, or so a friend of mine in the Computer 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No Way!  The 386SX is internally a FULL 32-bit uP (just like the 
386DX); the only difference is that the 386SX has a 16-bit external
data pathway as opposed to the 386DX's 32-bit external data pathway.

The result is that the 386SX can do everything that a 386DX can, only
slightly slower. 

>business tells me. If you are going to spend the money on a '386 (either a
>new motherboard, or a whole new system), you might as well get a good one
>that has a 32 bit Microprocessor.

>		Nina Banerjee
>		President
>		The Pinta Corporation, Inc.
>		(Also a SUNY at Buffalo Student)
[...]


------------------------------------------------------------
Ravi Dhiman
Motorola, Inc.
Cellular Infrastructure Div.
Arlington Heights, IL

My opinions, not my employer's.