Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!rutgers!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls58!mlord
From: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Difference between a 386 and a 386sx
Keywords: 386 386sx
Message-ID: <4407@bwdls58.UUCP>
Date: 24 Sep 90 14:16:36 GMT
References: <1990Sep16.194605.11968@ecn.purdue.edu> <4383@bwdls58.UUCP> <14110@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <4387@bwdls58.UUCP> <47642@bigtex.cactus.org>
Sender: mlord@bwdls58.UUCP
Reply-To: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 18

In article <47642@bigtex.cactus.org> james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>
>OK, then let's use 32 bit instructions that *do* access memory.  On an
>SX they'll take long because it takes two cycles.  So one could do a
>"rep stosw" then a "rep stosd" and measure the ratio of time between
>the two...

This is a clever idea, that might work most of the time.  However, caches
could easily have an effect on this, and at best, this method will measure
the memory/bus width, rather than the cpu type.  A 386dx CAN be talking to
16-bit wide memory, it's just that most of us wouldn't bother with such a 
setup.  But 16-bit memory cards provide cheap (and slow) memory for those
who need it. 
-- 
 ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________
| ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) |
| MLORD@BNR.CA   Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only.   |
|________________________________|________________________|