Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!usc!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!halibut.nosc.mil!koziarz
From: koziarz@halibut.nosc.mil (Walter A. Koziarz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 386 Sx & 387 maths chip (16 Mhz) or 386/25 and no maths chip ??y
Message-ID: <2562@nosc.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 27 Jul 90 14:08:03 GMT
References: <6585.26a7b1cc@vax1.tcd.ie> <90202.224428RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> <6499.26a985cd@uwovax.uwo.ca> <1990Jul22.202617.5437@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Sender: nobody@nosc.NOSC.MIL
Reply-To: koziarz@halibut.nosc.mil.UUCP (Walter A. Koziarz)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 16
X-Local-Date: 27 Jul 90 07:08:03 PDT

In article <1990Jul22.202617.5437@maytag.waterloo.edu> dmurdoch@watstat.uwaterloo.ca (Duncan Murdoch) writes:
>In article <6499.26a985cd@uwovax.uwo.ca> baer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>> c) the 386dx with
>>cache without a math chip is a slight bit slower than a 286 + 287 at 10 Mhz.
>>(287 running at 2/3 clock speed of course).
>
>This makes it sound as though the 20Mhz 386 would also be slower than my 8 Mhz
>8086+8087 on math intensive calculations.  Makes me feel a little less
>obsolete :-).
>
It doesn't just *sound* slower; it *most likely IS* slower.  My 10MHz
8088+10MHz 8087 combo (both running at 10MHz btw) is a little better than 3x
faster than the '386DXs here at work (without '387DXs, obviously).  If math is
your major use of the machine you are  *NOT* obsolete.

Walt K.