Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!umich!sharkey!rjf001!mudos!mju
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!!
Message-ID: <7yH411w164w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 28 Apr 91 04:53:05 GMT
References: <1991Apr26.165405.4679@digi.lonestar.org>
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, +1 313 665 2832
Lines: 24

jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes:
> 386SX they crippled the external bus path.  The 486SX SuX in that the
> math co-processor is either disabled or just not there (conflicting reports o
> that one).  Other than that (from what I have read) Noam is correct, although

I believe it's disabled, but probably "messed up" in some way.  I have
been hearing reports from inside Intel that the 486DX is so complex
that only about 1 out of 7 chips actually makes it off the assembly
line in full working order.  I suppose the 486SX is really a clever
marketing move by Intel to find something to do with all those 486DX
chips with part of the FPU unit messed up.

> since intel is coming out with a 487SX for the 486SX and they have to talk
> to each other somehow.

Not necessarily.  If what the WSJ said is right, a 487SX will really
just be a real 486DX, and the motherboard circuitry will disable the
486SX if a "487SX" is installed.  If this is true, then it's amazing
how a 487SX can cost more than a 486DX.

--
Marc Unangst               |
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us  | "Bus error: passengers dumped"
...!hela!mudos!mju         |