Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!uunet!bu.edu!m2c!risky.ecs.umass.edu!umaecs!daly From: daly@ecs.umass.edu (Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: How much for a 487SX?!! Message-ID: <13524.28218452@ecs.umass.edu> Date: 3 May 91 15:40:02 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> <1991May2.181631.13603@amd.com> Distribution: na Lines: 55 In article <1991May2.181631.13603@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > 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. I don't buy the 486SX being faster than the 386DX-40. IBM's 486SX marketing for their system claims the 486SX is CAN BE AS FAST AS a 386-33. This implies that it is nearly or is as fast as the 386-33 for most things, but is not faster. I can't see it coming close to a 386-40. Let's look at some math: Some magazine's real-world benchmarks on a bunch of 386-33 and 486-25 systems showed that the 486-25 was, on average, 10-15% faster than a 386-33. Now, reduce the speed of the 486 by 20% to make it a 486SX-20. You get 5-10% SLOWER than a 386-33. The Am386-40 has twice the clock rate of a 486SX, and it is a pretty weak claim to say that the 486 is twice as fast as a 386 at the same clock rate. Now, if adding a coprocessor is considered, the 486SX is even more of a loser, since it costs so much more to add the 487SX "co-processor" than it would to get add a 387. What is a 486SX? It's just a souped up 386DX, that Intel has slowed down to 20MHz, to be in direct competition with existing products (386-33, 386-40). What is gained by customers? Nothing. And if it hurts AMD's competition, we lose, too. Intel is using this marketing scam to try and squash it's competitor. I agree with an earlier poster who has said: JUST SAY NO (to Intel and 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.) > > -- I have no vested interests in either AMD or Intel, except as a consumer wanting more innovation and less marketing BS. -Bryon Daly daly@ecs.umass.edu