Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!rwthinf!slcdec!hippo!f1.n6000.z2.fidonet.org!p16.f8.n343.z1.fidonet.org!Morrie_Wilson From: Morrie_Wilson@p16.f8.n343.z1.fidonet.org (Morrie Wilson) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: NeXT or What MS Does Wrong! Message-ID: Date: 6 May 91 16:04:16 GMT Reply-To: Morrie_Wilson%p16.f8.n343.z1@hippo.dfv.rwth-aachen.de (Morrie Wilson) Organization: Wilson WindowWare via SeaSoftNet Lines: 23 Comment-To: James_Bell@f1.n6000.z2.fidonet.org (James Bell) >> Can anyone here explain (in a simple >> manner) what the 486SX is? Whats is the difference > to the 386? > > > It's just a 486 without the built-in floating point unit. > JB > > Actually, the skinny I've heard is that there are problems with the yields of the 486 processors with the built in co-processors. So Intel came up with the neat idea of being able to disable the co-processor and sell the result as a 486sx. In actuality, the co-processor does not lend a whole lot of speed to most applications. E.G. Lets say an application is 10% floating point intensive. Let say the coprocessor can speed up that portion 10X. The result is that with the co-processor it runs in 91% of the time, for a total savings of 9%.