Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 486 and FPUs (was Re: Let's pretend)
Keywords: Intel, 586, windows
Message-ID: <1990Dec19.222258.1305@kithrup.COM>
Date: 19 Dec 90 22:22:58 GMT
References: <3060@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Dec19.051616.3763@kithrup.COM> <3067@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 19

In article <3067@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Can you quote me your source on that, and post the numbers? I have run
>some benchmarks and see the Cyrix as faster than the "slow" 387,
>slightly faster than the 387-33 (which is new microcode), and slightly
>slower than the 486, all at 25 MHz.

The timings I have are all for the "slow" 387, and for teh '486.  Basicly,
the Cyrix was at least 8 cycles faster on all operations than the "slow"
387, and up to 10 times faster on some of the transcendental functions.  The
'486, on the other hand, was not quite *that* fast.  For simple operations,
the '486 is going to be faster than the current generation of Cyrix (a large
part of that is because of communication protocols between the CPU and FPU,
mind you).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.