Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!fernwood!uupsi!sunic!news.funet.fi!hydra!cc.helsinki.fi!osmoviita
From: osmoviita@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <1991Apr6.021141.5859@cc.helsinki.fi>
Date: 6 Apr 91 02:11:41 GMT
References: <40409@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Apr4.062503.1325@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr4.142742.20601@lonex.radc.af.mil>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 22


In article <1991Apr4.142742.20601@lonex.radc.af.mil>, andrewsh@lonex.radc.af.mil (Harold G. Andrews II) writes:
> 
>      Yeah, but...
> 
>      The 486 also has an internal 8K cache which offers a substantial 
> performace improvement over a 386 with an external cache.  If you can get away 
> with using the 386, then sure buy it.  If you want more power, get the 486.
> 
> 
> -Andy
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> * Harold G. "Andy" Andrews II, 1Lt, USAF  *  "Many the man whose punctuality  *
> * andrewsh@lonex.radc.af.mil              *   serves only to warm his chair." *

But I compared 33 Mhz 486 with 8k cache and 25 MHz 386 with 64k cache. The
25 MHz 386 was faster in some tests until I added additional cache to 486.
Then the performance of 486 was 4-5 times the performance without cache.
That was only in tests using lots of memory (e.g. 12 MB).

-Kari