Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!e260-1a.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@e260-1a.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Why buy a DX over an SX?
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.002309.1301@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 00:23:09 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.162615.13529@holos0.uucp> <1991Apr21.203004.9909@unlv.edu> <1991Apr24.234848.175@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr24.234848.175@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> snow@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
>In article <1991Apr21.203004.9909@unlv.edu>, whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes:
>> A $200 cache may be worth a 25-30% performance increase, but the 5-10%
>> increase of a DX over an SX with a 16 bit bus is probably not.
>Another issue to consider when deciding between a DX and an SX is the cost
>of a floating-point coprocessor.  When I bought my current motherboard,
>I could afford an 80386DX only or an 80386SX/80387SX combination.  I wasn't
>sure at the time that I would need the coprocessor, but I'm glad I chose it,
>since I've made heavy use of it these past few months.  Even now, I would
>not be able to afford an 80387DX (spare cash has been going for memory.)

It's not practical to buy a 386DX/387 combination.  A better buy would
be a 486, with its built in math coprocessor.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| Noam Mendelson   ..!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."             |