🚀 go-pugleaf

Wayne O. Miller FFR (miller@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: Hi,
:         I'm considering purchasing a used 486-66 SLC-2 based clone using
: an Alaris ISA motherboard, and a Cirrus logic SVGA card.
: My main intended use is for games and running Windows.  I know that
: games are notoriously sensitive to hardware configurations, so I would
: appreciate knowing if this particular CPU is game clean :-).  Also,
: apart from games, how is this CPU in general?  It costs about $200 less
: than a DX2, so there must be some compromise.

:         Please email me your responses, as I don't often scan these
: boards.

: Thanks,
: Wayne
: miller@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov

You'll have no problems. There was a time when people would only purchase PC's with
the IBM logo on it. The time has come were you don't need to have an INTEL chip. Offcourse
if you want to spend more money, go for it. The area likely to cause you grief is
the motherboard/firmware.


--kim

Kim Naru (CONTRA) (knaru@cup.hp.com) wrote:
: Wayne O. Miller FFR (miller@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: : Hi,
: :         I'm considering purchasing a used 486-66 SLC-2 based clone using
: : an Alaris ISA motherboard, and a Cirrus logic SVGA card.
...
: : apart from games, how is this CPU in general?  It costs about $200 less
: : than a DX2, so there must be some compromise.

: You'll have no problems. There was a time when people would only purchase PC's with
: the IBM logo on it. The time has come were you don't need to have an INTEL chip. Offcourse
: if you want to spend more money, go for it. The area likely to cause you grief is
: the motherboard/firmware.

Since Kim posted, I'll post the reponse I sent to Wayne, since recent
personal experience directly contradicts what Kim says:


I think the 486 SLC is the Cyrix chip?  If yes, then the answer is: NO.

Two data points:

   1) I had one that repeatedly failed after 1 to 3 hours running
      two different games (Where in the USA is Carmen SanDiego,
      and Omar Sharif's Bridge (a Windows bridge game)).  
      It failed on 3 different motherboards (each with a new Cyrix chip).  
      It did not fail on any motherboard with an Intel chip.  
      (Date: June, 1994)

   2) This month's Windows magazine has an article discussing the
      compatibility of Cyrix and AMD to Intel (no, IBM wasn't included).
      If memory serves, the AMD was poor.
      The Cyrix has at least one known, documented bug (involving cache misses
      and FP usage).   Since the bug isn't likely to have affected my games,
      I suspect that there may be other instances wherein cache misses are
      simply forgotten.

Short answer: don't do it.  Buy Intel...unfortunately.

Stan Sieler

In article <CrtuEB.F0v@allegro.com>, sieler@allegro.com (Stan Sieler) writes:
> Kim Naru (CONTRA) (knaru@cup.hp.com) wrote:
> : Wayne O. Miller FFR (miller@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov) wrote:
> : : Hi,
> : :         I'm considering purchasing a used 486-66 SLC-2 based clone using
> : : an Alaris ISA motherboard, and a Cirrus logic SVGA card.
> ...
> : : apart from games, how is this CPU in general?  It costs about $200 less
> : : than a DX2, so there must be some compromise.
> 
> : You'll have no problems. There was a time when people would only purchase PC's with
> : the IBM logo on it. The time has come were you don't need to have an INTEL chip. Offcourse
> : if you want to spend more money, go for it. The area likely to cause you grief is
> : the motherboard/firmware.
> 
> Since Kim posted, I'll post the reponse I sent to Wayne, since recent
> personal experience directly contradicts what Kim says:
> 
> 
> I think the 486 SLC is the Cyrix chip?  If yes, then the answer is: NO.
> 
> Two data points:
> 
>    1) I had one that repeatedly failed after 1 to 3 hours running
>       two different games (Where in the USA is Carmen SanDiego,
>       and Omar Sharif's Bridge (a Windows bridge game)).  
>       It failed on 3 different motherboards (each with a new Cyrix chip).  
>       It did not fail on any motherboard with an Intel chip.  
>       (Date: June, 1994)
> 
>    2) This month's Windows magazine has an article discussing the
>       compatibility of Cyrix and AMD to Intel (no, IBM wasn't included).
>       If memory serves, the AMD was poor.
>       The Cyrix has at least one known, documented bug (involving cache misses
>       and FP usage).   Since the bug isn't likely to have affected my games,
>       I suspect that there may be other instances wherein cache misses are
>       simply forgotten.
> 
> Short answer: don't do it.  Buy Intel...unfortunately.
> 
> Stan Sieler
> 
The 486 SLC2/66 chip is manufactured by IBM, as is the Alaris motherboard.
It is NOT the Cyrix CPU.  The floating point FPU is external, and
the onboard cache is 16K compared to the Intel 8K.

Mine has worked perfectly for at least six months now, with all
applications.
It is not as fast as a 486/DX2, but it is faster than my other 386/33 (Intel).
I am quite happy with it.

 - Robert Mitchell

In article <CrtuEB.F0v@allegro.com> sieler@allegro.com writes:
>Kim Naru (CONTRA) (knaru@cup.hp.com) wrote:
>: Wayne O. Miller FFR (miller@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: : Hi,
>: :         I'm considering purchasing a used 486-66 SLC-2 based clone using
>: : an Alaris ISA motherboard, and a Cirrus logic SVGA card.
>...
>: : apart from games, how is this CPU in general?  It costs about $200 less
>: : than a DX2, so there must be some compromise.
>
>: You'll have no problems. There was a time when people would only purchase PC's with
>: the IBM logo on it. The time has come were you don't need to have an INTEL chip. Offcourse
>: if you want to spend more money, go for it. The area likely to cause you grief is
>: the motherboard/firmware.
>
>Since Kim posted, I'll post the reponse I sent to Wayne, since recent
>personal experience directly contradicts what Kim says:
>
>
>I think the 486 SLC is the Cyrix chip?  If yes, then the answer is: NO.

The SLC on the Alaris board is an IBM derivative of the Intel 486.
I wish one or the other company had simply aggreed to change the name...

>
>Two data points:
>   2) This month's Windows magazine has an article discussing the
>      compatibility of Cyrix and AMD to Intel (no, IBM wasn't included).
>      If memory serves, the AMD was poor.
No, the AMD was quite good but the Cyrix was not as good.

>      The Cyrix has at least one known, documented bug (involving cache misses
>      and FP usage).

If you're thinking about the floating point bug reported in... Windows magazine
last month it only hits the 486DX2/66 clone they're now producing, not the
chips without onboard FP.

-Antonio Romero      romero@minerva.cis.yale.edu

The SLC is made by IBM using 486SX technology licensed from Intel with the
restriction that the chips can only be sold mounted to the motherboards, not
loose. The SLC has a 16K cache as opposed to the normal 8K, which Robert
Mitchell mentioned.
   
The DLC is, if I recall a Cyrix product. The Cyrix 486 upgrade chip that is
pin-compatible with the 386DX chip is I believe the one that had the bug
mentioned above. In any case, Cyrix chips made after March '94 are supposed to 
have the bug fixed.
   
Hope this clears things up a bit. If I've missed something, please leave me
mail...
Be seeing you,
Tox

-- 
***********************************************
*  Tox Gunn .......tox@remarque.berkeley.edu  *
*  "Your sanity is not my responsibility!"    *
***********************************************

In article <CrtuEB.F0v@allegro.com>, Stan Sieler <sieler@allegro.com> wrote:
>Kim Naru (CONTRA) (knaru@cup.hp.com) wrote:

>: :         I'm considering purchasing a used 486-66 SLC-2 based clone using
>: : an Alaris ISA motherboard, and a Cirrus logic SVGA card.

>I think the 486 SLC is the Cyrix chip?  If yes, then the answer is: NO.

Two chips 'sharing' the same name. IBM variation (which uses Intel core) 
and Cyrix variation (which use clean room core) Alaris uses IBM chips, so 
there shouldn't be any problem in terms of compatibiltiy. Remember however,
SLC does use 16bit external data bus that WILL pose performance penality,
despite of its larger cache (16k vs. 8k, for IBM and Intel respectively)

>   2) This month's Windows magazine has an article discussing the
>      compatibility of Cyrix and AMD to Intel (no, IBM wasn't included).
>      If memory serves, the AMD was poor.

(Chuckle) For a magazine that has the balls to compare a Beta product 
(without stating so in their article) against a finished product, then 
conclude that the beta product is inferior to the finished product, wouldn't 
trust their articles.

>      The Cyrix has at least one known, documented bug (involving cache misses
>      and FP usage).   Since the bug isn't likely to have affected my games,
>      I suspect that there may be other instances wherein cache misses are
>      simply forgotten.

Can't comment on this, since I have no information (more like I've not 
look for the information) on the said bug.

In article <dchiuCrw7wr.HFw@netcom.com> dchiu@netcom.com (David C.W. Chiu) writes:
>In article <CrtuEB.F0v@allegro.com>, Stan Sieler <sieler@allegro.com> wrote:
>>Kim Naru (CONTRA) (knaru@cup.hp.com) wrote:

>>: :         I'm considering purchasing a used 486-66 SLC-2 based clone using
>>: : an Alaris ISA motherboard, and a Cirrus logic SVGA card.

>>I think the 486 SLC is the Cyrix chip?  If yes, then the answer is: NO.

>Remember however,
>SLC does use 16bit external data bus that WILL pose performance penality,
>despite of its larger cache (16k vs. 8k, for IBM and Intel respectively)

In article <2uclr2$svm@agate.berkeley.edu> tox@remarque.berkeley.edu () 
writes:
>The SLC is made by IBM using 486SX technology licensed from Intel with the
>restriction that the chips can only be sold mounted to the motherboards, not
>loose. The SLC has a 16K cache as opposed to the normal 8K, which Robert
>Mitchell mentioned.

I'm confused.  My understanding is that for Intel 486 chips, SX means "no 
floating point unit", but is still 32-bit.  For 386 chips, SX meant "16 bit".
If the SLC is based on "486SX technology licensed from Intel", then the SLC 
ought to be 32-bit.  Now, if it were based on 386SX technology, that would be 
a different story.  It would also explain why Intel was so generous to IBM.