Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wa3wbu!gdx!jay
From: jay@gdx.UUCP (Jay A. Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Why buy a DX over an SX?
Message-ID: <191@gdx.UUCP>
Date: 4 May 91 03:54:27 GMT
References: <14534@encore.Encore.COM> <1991Apr12.162615.13529@holos0.uucp> <1991Apr21.203004.9909@unlv.edu>
Organization: GDX-BBS,Central Pa Unix BBS/anon uucp (717)737-3249 9600PEP/2400/1200 24hrs
Lines: 15
In-reply-to: whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu's message of 21 Apr 91 20:30:04 GMT


 whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes:

>Your statement is impratical and misleading.  First, the 386SX DOES have a        32 bit data path or else it would not be a 386!  It's bandwidth is only limited   across the bus, and since 90% of 386 buses are 16 bit (ISA), most DX systems would not realize a tremendous advantage over SX's when using 32-bit protected mode software.
>
>A $200 cache may be worth a 25-30% performance increase, but the 5-10% increase of a DX over an SX with a 16 bit bus is probably not.
>

the peripheral bus is not the concern.  The memory bus is.   The 386sx
only has  a 16bit path to the memory.

==============================================================================
Jay A. Snyder                                    "Let Me Up!  I've had enough"
wa3wbu!gdx!jay@uunet.uu.net             GDX-BBS (717) 737-3249 2400/1200/300bd
uunet!wa3wbu!gdx!jay             Unix and MSDOS File areas + Xenix executables