Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucselx!crash!pnet01!jca
From: jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: '386's SX's and DX's
Message-ID: <3654@crash.cts.com>
Date: 24 Jul 90 01:16:06 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Lines: 31

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 
>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.

That depends on what you're going to do.  Keep in mind that the ISA (or AT)
bus only is a 16-bit bus.  The register size of the 386SX is 32-bit.  The
address space is 24-bit (or 16 Mb of physical memory).  The 386SX does have a
place in the industry.  If all you need is 386 compatability on an ISA bus
machine, then the 386SX is perfect.  My only regret in getting a 386SX is not
waiting for the 20 MHz version with cache.  ALR has already started shipping
the 20 MHz 386SX PowerFlex modules w/32K cache.

I run SCO Xenix 386 2.3.3 on my 16 MHz 386SX and it performs well.  Now if
you're going to get a MicroChannel or EISA machine, then you might as well go
full blown 386DX since you have a 32-bit system bus you're dealing with, but
with respect to ISA, if you can live at 16 or 20 MHz, then the 386SX is for
you.
 
     // JCA

 /*
 **--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 ** Flames  : /dev/null                     | Small memory model only for
 ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil     | Unix?  Get the (*bleep*) out
 ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com            | of here!
 ** UUCP    : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
 **--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 */