Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!! Message-ID: <1991May2.181631.13603@amd.com> Date: 2 May 91 18:16:31 GMT References: <13471.281da4bf@ecs.umass.edu> <1991May1.131401.10245@cbnewsh.att.com> <1991May1.214432.15762@cmcl2.nyu.edu> <1991May1.233459.1062@eng.umd.edu> Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting) Distribution: na Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Lines: 25 goldberg@iastate.edu (Goldberg Adam Michael) writes: >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. The current Infoworld has a comparison of 486sx and 386dx-40 systems and the results were that the 486sx is not much faster than the 386dx-40. Depending on the machines and the benchmark, the 386dx-40 is sometimes faster than the 486sx. You do have a good point. If you don't buy the Am386, you may not have a chance to buy the Am486. Bringing products like this to market takes an enormous amount of work and money and AMD has taken a big gamble on the Am386. If Intel succeeds in killing it with the 486sx, AMD may not have enough resources left to develop the Am486. (These are my opinions only, not that of the company, but of course I have a vested interest.) --