Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!agate!web-1e.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Summary: some more numbers
Keywords: 486 386
Message-ID: <1991Apr7.232941.21382@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 91 23:29:41 GMT
References: <27865@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1991Apr6.045408.15395@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr7.170017.23962@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18

In article <1991Apr7.170017.23962@news.cs.indiana.edu> mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes:
>In article <1991Apr6.045408.15395@agate.berkeley.edu> c60b-1eq@e260-1d.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps, but since the majority of MSDOS software contains 16-bit code,
>>the 486 does not offer much realistic speed improvement.
>
>My 486/25 under DOS clocks at about 15,000 Dhrystones/sec.  This is about 2x
>my 386/20 with 64K cache; I would expect a 386/33 with cache to clock at about
>the same speed.

At least.
Given an identical clock speed, the 80486 CPU should be about 50% faster
than the 80386 CPU.

+==========================================================================+
| 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."             |