Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!seismo!esosun!forseti.css.gov From: tanida@forseti.css.gov (Tom Tanida) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!! Message-ID: <698@esosun.UUCP> Date: 1 May 91 17:15:14 GMT References: <1991Apr22.155803.8093@tandem.com> <1991Apr27.194311.15636@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Sender: news@esosun.UUCP Reply-To: tanida@esosun.css.gov (Tom Tanida) Organization: Science Aplications Int'l Corp. Lines: 19 In-reply-to: ajai@sce.carleton.ca (Ajai Sehgal) In article , ajai@sce (Ajai Sehgal) writes: >I got some info from a friend @ Intel on this one, although it seemd a bit >strange. The 486SX uses the same mask as the 486DX with the coprocessor >connection traces cut. I don't know about the pinout but one would assume that >Intel wouldn't make the DX and SX pin compatable. The suggested list price >for a 486SX and a 487SX combined is not less expensive than the cost of a >486DX. One has to ask, why would anyone who wants an FPU buy the SX version? >You get the same thing with the added overhead of interchip communication. Anybody who does want an FPU would buy the DX version. But the 486SX is (allegedly) faster than a 386 and is going to be released at the same price, so this would provide an alternative to getting a 386. If the 386SX is an indication, Intel's marketing strategy of providing chips for just about every level of PC computing is a good idea. (Then again, I could be biased because of the BusinessWeek article in the most recent issue :-) ). -Tom tanida@esosun.css.gov