Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!polyslo!jdudeck From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Math chips and CAD was: recommendations wanted Summary: Get one Keywords: pc, 286 386 CAD math chips Message-ID: <25ce13f4.5fd6@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Date: 6 Feb 90 00:01:56 GMT References: <183@b8.INGR.COM> <4426@pegasus.ATT.COM> <25c86533:4479.2comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@vpnet.UUCP> Reply-To: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo Lines: 19 In article <25c86533:4479.2comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@vpnet.UUCP> akcs.amparsonjr@vpnet.UUCP (Anthony M. Parson, Jr.) writes: >will say an 80386 (25 mhz) without a coprocessor, is STILL faster by far >than the 8088/8087 combination. Moral: get a fast 80286 or 80386, and >possibly save the cost of buying a math coprocessor. Of course, it depends I haven't done any precise comparisons, but I watched a friend run Generic CADD 2.0 on his 8mhz luggable XT with a 4 mhz 8087, and then tried running the same thing on a Premium/286 10 mhz with no math chip. There was no contest. The XT won easily. Now I have a 386/20, and I haven't had a chance to do any comparisons. I also have a math chip. But I would be willing to bet my money on the XT against a 386 with no math chip. My 386 has the option of EITHER an 80287 at 8 mhz (costs under $200) or an 80387 at 20mhz (big bucks). Needless to say, I chose the '287, since I am a poor student and not doing big time number cruching or lots of CAD. The motherboard is an X'Golden. I think some other motherboards give this same option. When buying a budget system it is definitely a point to consider if you are going to be wanting a math chip. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.