Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Replacing an 80386 with an 80486
Message-ID: <564@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 90 04:22:55 GMT
References: <29108@amdcad.AMD.COM> <1640057@hpspcoi.HP.COM> <25E98AD7.9457@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <9589@portia.Stanford.EDU> <241.25ec328b@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> <9830@sequoia.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 18

In article <9830@sequoia.UUCP> cb@sequoia.UUCP () writes:

| 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.

  Fools my benchmarks! I see the 486 about 2.2 times faster than a 386
at the same clock (I have seen 2.6 elsewhere, so that's close), and for
f.p. the 486 is about 4 times faster than the 387.

  I have no idea where you got your information, but it seems to be
completely wrong.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon