Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ATHENA.MIT.EDU!pshuang
From: pshuang@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: 386/33 + 387 or 486/25?  Which bus?
Message-ID: <9106132139.AA24898@beeblebrox.MIT.EDU>
Date: 13 Jun 91 21:39:34 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 27

In article <strasser.676770721@psych> strasser@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Michael Strasser) writes:

 > Given that, am I better off getting a 386/33 + 387 machine or
 > a 486/25 (I don't think I can afford a 486/33)?  Does the on-chip
 > co-pro on the i486 make as much (relative) improvement as the
 > 387 to the 386?  (Was that a relevant question?)

You should probably think about getting the 486/25, since the price
point of that machine (from most manufacturers) is almost exactly the
same as a 386/33 + 387 and you'll get something like 25% better CPU
performance and 50% better FPU performance.  I bought a 386/33 in
January and now regret not having gotten the 486/25 instead.  Sigh.

 > If I get a 486 machine, should I get one with an EISA bus, or
 > is an ISA bus sufficient?  Does ISA = AT bus?

Unless you think you're going to do mongo amounts of expansion into
high-speed peripherals or networking, an ISA (which is a way of saying
"IBM-AT expansion bus" without using Big Blue's trademarks {grin}) will
do.  EISA still seems to command a $500+ price premium, although this
may drop in the future.  What is very important if you're thinking of
moving toward the UNIX or OS/2 environment is to make sure that the disk
subsystem you get is as fast as you can possibly afford, as this makes a
*BIGGER* difference in the throughput you'll observe.

Singing off,
UNIX:/etc/ping instantiated (Ping Huang)