Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!emory!gatech!prism!dali!ken
From: ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: 386 dx vs. sx
Message-ID: <18330@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 7 Dec 90 22:30:29 GMT
References: <28664@usc>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Reply-To: ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Organization: The House Of Fun
Lines: 20

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
>that the clock speeds are the same, of course.)

This is, of course, absolutely wrong...

All 386's (SX, DX or whatever) have 32-bit ints.  32-bit registers,
32-bit intra-segment pointers (is that the right phrase?), 32-bit
ALUs.  End of story.  *Memory fetches* are done in 16-bit quantities
in an SX...I assume thats where you lost track...

As far as `big win', I've never seen (on 16MHz, non-cached, ISA-bus
machines) a DX beat an SX by more than about 20% on CPU intensive
stuff.  Perhaps just different definitions of what `big win' means...

--
	ken seefried iii	"A sneer, a snarl, a whip that
	ken@dali.gatech.edu	 stings...these are a few of
				 my favorite things..."