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: How much for a 487SX?!! Keywords: 486 487 Message-ID: <1991Apr26.002911.1793@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 26 Apr 91 00:29:11 GMT References: <13342.28130474@ecs.umass.edu> <1991Apr25.132715.1945@cbnewsh.att.com> Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root) Distribution: na Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 19 In article <1991Apr25.132715.1945@cbnewsh.att.com> rkl@cbnewsh.att.com (kevin.laux) writes: > Um...Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the differences >between DX and SX that the DX can do 32-bit accesses while the SX can do >only 16-bit (like the 386DX vs the 386SX)? This would mean you couldn't >just replace the 486SX with the 486DX to get the FPU functionality. Also, >what about the speed difference (486SX runs at 20 MHz). And lastly, there >is also the difference in power consumption. You're wrong. But Intel's naming strategy is completely inconsistent. The 386SX is a 386DX with a 16-bit external data path. The 486SX is a regular 32-bit 486 sans math coprocessor. To be consistent, Intel should've named the 386SX a 388. Or at least they could be consistent with their 'SX' label. -- +==========================================================================+ | 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." |