Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv01a0.vincent.iastate.edu!goldberg From: goldberg@iastate.edu (Goldberg Adam Michael) Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!! Message-ID: Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA References: <13471.281da4bf@ecs.umass.edu> <1991May1.131401.10245@cbnewsh.att.com> <1991May1.214432.15762@cmcl2.nyu.edu> <1991May1.233459.1062@eng.umd.edu> Distribution: na Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 01:19:33 GMT Lines: 36 In <1991May1.233459.1062@eng.umd.edu> crouse@eng.umd.edu (Gil Crouse) writes: >In article <1991May1.214432.15762@cmcl2.nyu.edu> tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (L Testerville) writes: >>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? >The big assumption your making is that every one will want to get the >487SX at some point. The math coprocessor market is a fraction of the >size of the market for CPUs. For business application the coprocessor >really doesn't offer much improvement in speed. Most (or at least >many) PC users are perfectly happy with a fast CPU and no coprocessor. >If that is the case, buying the 486SX saves the buyer $330. Of course, the whole 486SX thing is a big scam for Intel. The difference between a 486SX & DX? The SX has the internal math processor (all 486DXs have the math co-processor built-in) disabled. So the 487SX is actually a 486DX in disguise. What it amounts to is Intel trying to scam us into believing that we're better off getting a 486SX for the same prices as an AMD 386-40. Personally I'd rather buy an inferior chip from AMD than a better one from Intel. Increased competition -> lower prices -> more competition. Just say No (to Intel). Adam --