Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!voder!pyramid!altos!altos86!rcollins
From: rcollins@altos86.Altos.COM (Robert Collins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!!
Message-ID: <280@altos86.Altos.COM>
Date: 30 Apr 91 15:36:09 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.155803.8093@tandem.com> <1991Apr27.194311.15636@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: rcollins@altos86.UUCP (Robert Collins)
Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 27

In article <1991Apr27.194311.15636@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) writes:
>Speaking of the 487SX... here is something quite weird. The latest
>IBM products circular mentions a 486SX machine. Forget what its
>called, but IBM mentions an upgrade to the 487SX. Now comes the
>weird part. To get the 487SX upgrade, IBM wants the 486SX chip
>returned!!!! This tells us that the 387SX is no coprocessor, it 
>IS the microprocessor. In which case one would like to know what
>the difference between the 487SX and the 486DX (?) is!
>
>I think someone at IBM goofed big time...
>
No, Intel goofed.  The '487SX is actually a '486DX with a few pins switched
position.  So, it is possible to remove the '486SX when the '487 is
installed.  Intel did this so people couldn't plug in a '486DX, and up
the clock speed to 33Mhz.  They are trying to gouge the public for the cost
of the 487 upgrade -- which costs more than a '486DX!  When you say that
this "tells us that the 387SX is no coprocessor" I think you meant to
say '487SX.  In which case, you are totally correct, it is no coprocessor...
it is the main processor.



-- 
"Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."  Mat. 4:10
Robert Collins                 UUCP:  ...!sun!altos86!rcollins
HOME:  (408) 225-8002
WORK:  (408) 432-6200 x4356