Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!JUTS!duts!kls30 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: 386 dx vs. sx Message-ID: Date: 7 Dec 90 15:52:42 GMT References: <28664@usc> Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Distribution: na Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 37 In article <28664@usc> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >Getting a 386dx (as opposed to a 386sx) is a big win for V.3 and V.4, >because the basic integer size is 32 bits instead of 16 bits. (Assuming The basic integer size on the sx is exactly the same as the dx. The diff. between the two processors, for the umpteenth time is: sx does 16 bit fetches to memory and can only access 16 meg of real mem. dx does 32 bit fetches to memory and can access 4 gig of real mem. Besides that the are the same internally and software CANNOT tell the difference between the two. >that the clock speeds are the same, of course.) > >On the other hand, the 386dx offers no basic advantage over the 386sx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wrong again. All dx fetches to memory are 32 bit so a dx has faster performance given the same clock speed for ANY type of memory transfer. This is the only advantage in speed besides clock that you can get given two systems with the same basic arch. (cached systems are another story) >for DOS (yech) systems. (Check the benchmarks, paying attention to >clock speed.) > >What is the situation with Bruce Evan's 386 Minix? Is the DX a big win >over the SX? Upgrading users want to know . . . > >-- >favourite oxymorons: student athlete, military justice, mercy killing >Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */