Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!ucla-cs!ucla-seas!boole!plinio
From: plinio@boole.seas.ucla.edu (Plinio Barbeito)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Am386 release?
Summary: low cost may be a better alternative
Message-ID: <2208@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 16 Mar 91 01:42:20 GMT
References: <009458A1.42C717A0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1991Mar13.195943.18007@amd.com> <00945989.217CDD80@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Sender: news@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
Lines: 18

In article <00945989.217CDD80@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>The real question in my mind: Where does AMD go with the '386 from here? Do
>they put the math co-processor and some cache on-chip? Do they go head-to-head
>with Intel and (at some point) put multiple '386es on a chip? HOPEfully, they
>will "crank the clock" and offer a broad range of products from low power, low
>speed (25Mhz) to high power (50+Mhz) within the next year.  

Why invest a great deal to compete with the 486 when the lower end 
market is easy pickings?  A low-cost version with an on-chip cache
large enough to obviate the need for the cost of an external cache
seems to be a more marketable idea.  With the 286 (and lower) market
doing so well, why limit yourself to the power-user market?


plin
--
----- ---- --- -- ------ ---- --- -- - -  -  plinio@seas.ucla.edu 
I don't think therefore I'm not