Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!nysernic!itsgw!leah!albanycs!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: brain-dead 386?
Message-ID: <7147@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 15:19:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.7147
Posted: Fri Aug 28 15:19:19 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 02:07:09 EDT
References: <4149@spool.wisc.edu.WISC.EDU> <4380@amd.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Distribution: comp
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 23
Keywords: 386, 16 Mhz 286

In article <4380@amd.AMD.COM> ching@amd.UUCP (Mike Ching) writes:
|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

|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.

As a DOS machine the 286 is probably far more cost effective than the
386. Running software which takes advantage of the 386 would make the
386 more cost effective, but only if you need the power. It's hard to
beat the <$1k XT clone including a display and 20mb slow hard disk when
it comes to price performance.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {chinet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me