Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:5354 comp.sys.intel:1620 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!cpqhou!johnk From: johnk@cpqhou.uucp (John Kennedy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: Question -- 386DX versus 386SX Message-ID: <1991Feb08.193453.8318@cpqhou.uucp> Date: 8 Feb 91 19:34:53 GMT References: <1991Feb7.182436.17262@athena.cs.uga.edu> Reply-To: johnk@cpqhou.UUCP (John Kennedy) Distribution: usa Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation Lines: 31 In article <1991Feb7.182436.17262@athena.cs.uga.edu> boone@athena.cs.uga.edu (Roggie Boone) writes: >I know this has probably been asked before, but I am new to this group. > >Could someone please explain or direct me to an article that explains in >some detail the difference(s) between a full 80386 microprocessor >(80386DX) and the 80386SX? Are they both 32-bit processors? I've >heard that the main difference is that the SX "talks" to the outside >world (memory, disk, etc) at 16-bits while the DX uses 32 bits. Is this >true and is this the only difference? Are there any limitations on >the 386SX running 386-specific software? > >_Any_ info that can be provided (technical or not) would be appreciated. > >Thanks in advance. > >Roggie Boone (boone@athena.cs.uga.edu) >University of Georgia To the programmer, i.e. to software, the SX looks exactly like a DX. Well, not EXACTLY, but the differences are minor minor minor. The DX has a 4 GB address space (32 bits), while the SX has only a 16 MB (24 bits) address space. Also, the SX requires a 387SX co-processor, the DX can use either a regular 387 or a 287. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John R. Kennedy | Most applications of the 80386 will use real Compaq Computer Corporation | mode for initialization only. | uunet!cpqhou!johnk | -- 80386 Programmer's | Reference Manual "Don't tread on me." | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------