Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!lgnp1!penrij!soup
From: soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 386SX vs 386DX
Summary: 386SX Cheapness
Message-ID: <101@penrij.LS.COM>
Date: 10 Feb 90 14:10:14 GMT
References: <1990Feb8.223250.17994@aucs.uucp>
Distribution: na
Organization: penrij, Perkasie PA
Lines: 29

In article <1990Feb8.223250.17994@aucs.uucp>, 860088m@aucs.uucp (Spiros Mancoridis) writes:
> I am interested in purchasing a 386 machine.  Judging from the 
> postings in various newsgroups the only difference between a 
> 386SX based machine and a 386DX based machine is speed because the
> 386SX has a 16-bit bus compared to a 386DX which has a 32-bit bus.
> If this is the only difference, why is there such a great difference
> in price?

	Also, the SX wimps out (currently) at 16 MHz.  This reduced
	bandwidth reduces the price.

	There is another (shudder) _marketing_ reason.  Intel wants
	the SX to _kill_ use of the 286 chip since second sources
	exist for it;  so, they want everybody to become totally
	dependant upon Intel Corp.  Of course, in Real (DOS) mode
	a 386SX will be blown away by one of Harris's 200 MHz 286.

	BTW, Motorola is trying the same thing with the 68040 and
	88000.  The big difference, howsomever, is the Motorola's
	chips work right the first time, and no changes are needed
	to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and
	the EISA bus-  Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt
	the EISA manufacturers).

	Yes, I'm paranoid, but then, I am a motorcyclist. :-) :-)

--
 John R. Campbell	...!uunet!lgnp1!penrij!soup	  (soup@penrij.LS.COM)
		 "In /dev/null no one can hear you scream"