Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!e260-1f.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@e260-1f.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Question about different 386's ...
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.023634.549@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 91 02:36:34 GMT
References: <1991Apr3.180507.22930@bwdls61.bnr.ca> <27fb0c94-b35.1comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware-1@vpnet.chi.il.us>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <27fb0c94-b35.1comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes:
>Takis Skagos scribbled:
>>Item: 2869 by coop4y44 at bwdla28.bnr.ca
>>  Subj: Question about different 386's ...
>>  Date: Thu Apr 04 1991 03:02 
>>  Hi.  I've a question about the different chips in the 80386 family
>>tree.  I've heard the 386 refered to as 386SX, 386DX, and something
>>else that I cannot remember.  Does anybody out there know?
>Hi too.. The 80386 is very simple.  386SX is a 16 bit crunching chip.  It
>processes 16 bits at a time while the 386DX is a 32 bit crunching chip.  You
>are probably better off to get the DX.  But for tight bugets; an SX is the
>way to go.

I disagree.  Even though the DX has 16 more pins, most of the time they're
not being used.  This is due to the fact that most MSDOS programs are 16-bit
(with the exception of 386-specific programs).  So unless you actually make
use of all 32 pins, a 386SX is not a bad way to go.

+==========================================================================+
| Noam Mendelson   ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, |
| c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU                     |  it's backed up on tape  |
| University of California at Berkeley          |  somewhere."             |