Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!tester
From: tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (L Testerville)
Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!!
Message-ID: <1991May1.214432.15762@cmcl2.nyu.edu>
Organization: New York University
References: <1991Apr22.155803.8093@tandem.com> <13471.281da4bf@ecs.umass.edu> <1991May1.131401.10245@cbnewsh.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 21:44:32 GMT
Lines: 25

rkl@cbnewsh.att.com (kevin.laux) writes:
>In article <13471.281da4bf@ecs.umass.edu>, daly@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>> So, is the 486SX being marketed against the 386-33?  If so, they're going to 
>> need a pretty good price to match the 386-33's price-performance ratio,
>> especially with AMD gearing up production of its clone 386's,which is bound
>> to drive down the 386 prices.

>	I don't think so specifically;  I think the point here is that the
>486SX at 20 MHz will outperform a 386DX (at 25 MHz) and that Intel now is
>*not* the sole supplier (of 386's).  The 486SX is being marketed as a cheaper
>alternative to the 486DX *and* Intel is the only one who makes it (or any
>486's, for that matter).  They are trying to get the 486(SX) to be the
>de facto standard of choice for PCs.  Lots of bucks for Intel :-).

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like Intel is trying to pull a MAJOR
marketing scam on us.  According to Infoworld, Intel will sell the 486SX-20
to OEMs for $258.  Sounds good compared to AMD selling the AMD386DX-40
for $390.  But, there's a catch.  If you ever want to get a math
coprocessor (487SX), you need to shell out an ADDITIONAL _$799_ (which
is a technologically brain-damaged approach: the 487SX actually "takes
over as [both] the CPU and the math coprocessor").  Now the 486-25
supposedly goes for $588, but for the lame user who opts for a 486SX-20;
he/she will have to shell out a total of $1057 (OEM costs, mind you) for
what amounts to a 486-_20_!  Mind-boggling.  Maybe Intel figures nobody
will catch on to this plot?