Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!husc6!yale!bunker!hjg
From: hjg@bunker.UUCP (Harry J. Gross)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Serious math-coprocessor on the 80386 (80387 ?)
Message-ID: <2032@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-May-87 12:06:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.2032
Posted: Fri May  8 12:06:09 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 9-May-87 18:43:20 EDT
References: <3477@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: hjg@bunker.UUCP (Harry J. Gross)
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 18

In article <3477@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mic@lapis.berkeley.edu(Michel Bruneau) writes:
>It is a well know fact that the 8086-8087 combinaison beats easily the
						       ^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Is this true?  Really?  Even using C (Microsoft)?  Why?  Can someone
explain this please?

>80286-80287 setup in term of numbercrunching speed (at least for the
>Fortran programs I use!) .. Now that the 80386 is out, is there a
>math-coprocessor that will come with it , and can we expect real output
>from it (i.e. speeding up 20 times or more, like the 8087 did with the 8086)?

				Thanks
-- 
..!bunker\			|	This space reserved for a
..!phri\   \			|	particularly funny quotation
 ..!nyit!gor!hjg (Harry Gross)	|
..!helm/			|	All donations cheerfully examined