🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0Gznx.JCK@wimsey.bc.ca>, bhenning@wimsey.bc.ca (Bill Henning) writes:
>>It should.  A 486 is much faster than a 386 of the same speed.  Case in
>>point: The 486SX/25 (like the one I'm using now) is a little faster than
>>an AMD 386/40, but the 486SX is upgradeable for $450.
>>
>>-- 
>>aj923@cleveland.freenet.edu (So now you listen, 'cause I'm omniscient)
> 
> I am not sure that is the case. Did Byte not run some benchmarks about a
> year ago that showed that a 386/40 consistently beat a 486SX25 on almost
> every bencmark?
> 
> I have an Amd386/40, 64k cache, Cyrix FasMath 387 based machine at home,
> and I don't really notice a speed difference between it and the 486/33
> 256k cache machine I have at work.

Yup, my parents bought a no-name 386/40, roughly same spec as an Evesham Micros
(that is a name in the UK) 486/33 owned by a friend. Both systems had same
memory (4MB) and IDE drives, SVGA 1024x768x256 etc. This friend came round to
see the 386/40 and some software I was developing, he was amazed and reckoned
the difference in speed was negligible (sp?). No major floating point happening
tho!

Get a 386/40 if you can, give your money to non-Intel (ie non monopolisers).
I've got nothing against Intel, but you only see Intel drop their prices to
reasonable levels when they have competition in that market, hence 486 still
being a considerable hike.
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.