Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!amd!ching
From: ching@amd.AMD.COM (Mike Ching)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: brain-dead 386?
Message-ID: <4380@amd.AMD.COM>
Date: Thu, 27-Aug-87 12:30:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: amd.4380
Posted: Thu Aug 27 12:30:17 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 09:57:32 EDT
References: <4149@spool.wisc.edu.WISC.EDU>
Reply-To: ching@amd.UUCP (Mike Ching)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 26
Keywords: 386, 16 Mhz 286

In article <4149@spool.wisc.edu.WISC.EDU> jojo@speedy.WISC.EDU (Jon Wesener) writes:
>
>	I have recently been hearing how AMD 16Mhz 80286-16 with CHIPS chips
>	set is faster than the 80386 also running at 16Mhz.  Does this rumor
>	take into consideration the different I/O Bandwidths?  It would seem
>	the 286 would still have 1/2 the bandwidth which would affect everything
>	from memory to disk access times.  Does anyone know?
>
>--j
>jon wesener
>jojo@speedy.wisc.edu
>	"If you like ASTROTIT, you should see what's coming! ;-)"


The rumor is an exaggeration. The comparison was a PC-Limited 286
running at 16MHz and a Compaq 386 also running at 16MHz. The
performance of the 286 is claimed to be 94% of the 386 running the
same code (Dhrystone compiled with Microsoft C). The price/
performance ratio is where the 286 comes out ahead. Memory bandwidth
is doubled with the 386 but the I/O is not limited by bus bandwidth
in a PC.

I'm not a spokesman for the company...just reading off the press
release.

mike ching