Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars!kaleb
From: kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 386 vs 386SX
Message-ID: <2452@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 27 Dec 89 17:33:17 GMT
References: <25346@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: kaleb@mars.UUCP (Kaleb Keithley)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Lines: 21

In article <25346@cup.portal.com> Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) writes:
>Will the SX run ALL software designed for a straight 386?  I do not wish 
>to get the SX and go through the hair pulling that I have done so far with
>my juked 286!  The only reason I consider the SX is because of money.  If

The SX is 100% compatible with the DX (otherwise known as a '386)  The main
difference lies in the memory bus, which is only 16 bits wide, as compared to
the DX which has a 32 bit wide memory bus.  Another money saving feature,
because you can put memory on in 2Meg increments, unlike most DX systems,
which require 4Meg increments.  This is just like the difference between the
8086 and the 8088, which had 16 bit and 8 bit memory busses, respectively,
they they too were 100% compatible.  The SX is slower than the DX because it
has to do two reads to get a 32 bit word that a DX can get in one read, just
like the 8088 vs 8086.  Not that most of your DOS software is going to be
doing 32 bit reads anyway.


Chewey, get us outta here!
                 
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov             (818)354-8771
Kaleb Keithley