Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!uniol!unido!rwthinf!slcdec!hippo!f1.n6000.z2.fidonet.org!f90.n310.z2.fidonet.org!Alexander_Holy
From: Alexander_Holy@f90.n310.z2.fidonet.org (Alexander Holy)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: 486SX
Message-ID: <1024391017@f90.n310.z2.fidonet.org>
Date: 2 May 91 14:02:01 GMT
References: <1359452390@p11.f11.n310.z2.fidonet.org>
Reply-To: Alexander_Holy%f90.n310.z2@hippo.dfv.rwth-aachen.de (Alexander Holy)
Organization: Far Side::Vienna, Austria
Lines: 25
Comment-To: Joachim_Kainz@f1.n6000.z2.fidonet.org (Joachim Kainz)


 >  > 486SX == 486 w/o "built in" coprocessor
 >
 > 486SX == 386 ?

No, no. The 486 is a complex 64-bit RISC CPU (very similar to the i860) which 
is microcoded to do 386 instructions. The hardware is totally different.

The 486sx seems to be here for marketing reasons, now that AMD has started 
shipping their 386 clone CPUs. I think that the 486sx will perform like a 486 
of equal speed. The question is, since it lacks the internal FPU, if there will 
be a 487sx. If yes, the 487sx/486sx combination is likely to perform 
drastically worse than a 486.

If you are not interested in FPUs, the 486sx may be worth a look. Anyway, there 
seems to be a need for fast CPUs for doing such weird things as Windows.


Clue: If Windows runs much to slow on a 286, and does not make sense to run on 
a 386sx with less than 2 MB, why are we still using 16bit compilers?

Anyone got his hands on the new Watcom 386 C Compiler special Windows Version?

---