Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 486SX - Intel now telling lies
Message-ID: <1991May30.213810.27325@amd.com>
Date: 30 May 91 21:38:10 GMT
References: <1991May29.191233.18863@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991May29.212337.7684@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991May29.230433.10095@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> <1991May30.164751.16585@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 16

kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>Whether the FPU is good or not, Intel is saying that the chip can be made,
>and sold at a profit for $250.  It costs *them* the same to produce, per unit,
>whether the FPU passes QC or not.  Up to now, buyers of full-up i486s have 
>been carrying the cost of the failed units in the price of the good units.  
>Is Intel going to reduce the price of good units now that bad units can 
>be unloaded in the bargain basement?  Are they going to give me a refund 
>on the i486 I already bought?  Of course they're not, on both counts.

An interesting data point is that the 487sx, which is simply a 486dx which
runs at a lower clock rate (20 MHz vs 25 MHz), costs quite a bit more
than the 486dx, about $799 vs around $500. What does this mean?

--
The media is in the business of distorting people's perception of
reality, by emphasising the out of the ordinary.