Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!maccs!cs4g6ag
From: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Replacing an 80386 with an 80486
Message-ID: <25EDB8A8.27543@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Date: 2 Mar 90 00:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn)
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
Lines: 30

In article <9830@sequoia.UUCP> cb@sequoia.UUCP () writes:
$?!?!?!? If you have a 386 why would you switch to a 486 instead of adding
$a 387?

   Speed.

$The only IMPORTANT differences, as I understand, are as follows:
$   1) Intel i$ $pending lot$ of dollar$ trying to make u$ believe
$      that the 486 is my$tically better than 386+387.
$   2) The 386+387 configuration is available and works.
$What am I missing?

   Well, I recall seeing a benchmark of a couple of 486/25 systems
against a couple of 386/33 systems in BYTE's February issue.  Relative
to an 8 MHz AT, the 386 systems had a performance level of around 6,
while the 486 systems were at about 7 on a mix that didn't include
floating point.  Floating point ran somewhat more than twice as fast
on the 486 machines as it did on the 386 machines.

   Don't forget that a) Intel has made many instructions operate much
faster on the 486 than on the 386/387 (especially in floating point),
and b) all 486 systems have at least 8K of cache memory, and optionally
more, while 386 systems may not have any.

   It isn't just mystic ... it's real.
-- 
Stephen M. Dunn                               cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
          <std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
               I Think I'm Going Bald - Caress of Steel, Rush