Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: AMD386-DX
Message-ID: <3672@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 91 02:51:56 GMT
References: <1991Apr2.022516.26153@news.iastate.edu> <68305@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1032@stewart.UUCP> <69454@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 19

In article <69454@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes:

| 	I'm waiting to see if someone other than Intel offers us such a
| solution since it seems as though the legal precedence has been established.
| Refer to the second portion of my original article.  All AMD has to do is
| be careful what they name the device. ;)

  AMI has the right to use Intel microcode. However, there is a lot more
to the chip than microcode, and I don't know if the right to microcode
in the FPU has been established.

  For what it's worth, a benchmark which is very heavily trig intensive
ran faster on a 16MHz Cyrix SX chip than a 486-25. I think I'd rather
have the 486, though!
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me