🚀 go-pugleaf

Thomas D. Barrett (tdbear@dvorak.amd.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan9.143517.6052@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> wai@mackinac.ecn.purdue.edu (Benjamin Wai) writes:
: 
: >	Is this 486slc2 to 486slc the same as comparing
: >	DX2 with DX? Or have I misread something?
: 
: This *is* confusing and I can't figure out why in the world IBM would
: have gone ahead with their plans to use such similar chip names.
: Anyway... the IBM chip is most likely their own 486 (they have full
: rights to the 486 and the 486 microcode for their own use and to sell
: to anyone on PC Boards... OEMs or end-users).  The "slc" part means
: that it is low power.  I doubt if it is a Cyrix.

The IBM version of 486slc and 486slc2 are fully functional and
identical to the INTEL counteparts, conforming to INTEL's Chip
specifications and microcode. As for the IBM 386slc, they have 16Kb
on-chip cache, but for 486slc, I have no idea. But definitely, It is not
a Cyrix but an INTEL for sure.



Best regards,
Steve


===========================================================================
=                                          =                              =
=  Ng Yeng Yong, Steve                     =   Life is short,             =
=  ISC10085@NUSUNIX1.NUS.SG                =       Play Hard,             =
=  1st Year, Computer Science              =            Work Hard,        =
=  Department of Information System        =                 Have Fun.    =
=  and Computer Science (DISCS)            =   So, let our hair down      =
=  National University of Singapore (NUS)  =      and have lots of fun.   =
=                                          =                              =
===========================================================================