Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!norsk
From: norsk@sequent.UUCP (Doug Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: 386 dx vs. sx
Message-ID: <48016@sequent.UUCP>
Date: 7 Dec 90 16:54:38 GMT
References: <28664@usc>
Reply-To: norsk@eng3.UUCP (Doug Thompson)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 29

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.)

Allow me a small correction here. a 386DX and 386SX both have 32 bit 
integers when in protected mode. The only difference is the Bus Interface
Unit. The DX is 32 bits wide and SX is 16 bits wide. Similiar to the
mechanisms used on the 8086 (16 bit wide BIU) and the 8088 (8 bit wide BIU)
which are  both 16 bit CPUs.

>
>On the other hand, the 386dx offers no basic advantage over the 386sx
>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 . . .
>

In some cases, the SX machine is the only machine some people can
get, even if it is ONLY two or so hundred dollars less than
a DX based machine.

-- 
Douglas Thompson		UUCP: ..{tektronix,ogicse,uunet}!sequent!norsk
				Internet:	norsk@sequent.com
"The scientist builds to learn; the engineer learns in order to build."  
Fred Brooks