🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug18.210209.6191@sarah.albany.edu>,
pv9955@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
> 
> I know that a form of this question has apreared all over the net.  But this
> one is slightly different...
> I think that we will all agree that a 486dx2-50 is faster than a 486dx33, 
> with internal processing.  But it still operates at 25mHz for addressing the
> bus, and hard drive, whereas the 486dx33 operates at the faster 33mHz.
> So under the assumption that a 386-40 and a 486sx25 can process information
> at about the same speed (the 386 is faster, the 486 is more efficient),
> is is safe to assume that the 386-40 will access the bus (including hard 
> drive) faster than a 486 running at 25mHz ?
> For those people using Windows or OS2, which use a lot of virtual memory, and
> disk swapping, this question should be more important than internal
> processing.  I am about the buy a computer for OS2, and I would like to know
> which motherboard will handle the disk swapping better.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter V.

Unfortunately, the question isn't as simple as the raw processor speed.
The motherboard choice and peripherals would likely be the
differentiating factor.

Since ISA motherboards all run between 6 and 12 MHz (depending on your
BIOS settings and how far you want to push the bus speed), both 
processors should have equal data transfer capabilities over the bus.
Now, you can improve the performance by selecting an EISA, MCA, or 
local bus motherboard, all of which should outperform ISA.  

I use OS/2 and just upgraded my system (motherboard change):

       was:                       is now:
     386-25 MHz                 486-33 MHz
     0K cache                   256K cache
     8 MB RAM (80ns)            8 MB RAM (70ns)

Both used the same 85 MB SCSI drive using INT 13 access under OS/2.
(Still waiting for the drivers  :-( ).

When running with my new motherboard, the main difference I see is
with screen update speeds and application performance.  Windows open
faster and everything is more fluid.  Unfortunately, the overall speed isn't
great because disk transfers are holding everything up!  
In comparison, I've seen OS/2 run on a 486-33 with 64K cache, 
4 MB RAM, and 85 Meg IDE.  Since IDE doesn't need the additional 
drivers this system ran as fast as mine simply because the disk 
transfer rates are higher.  EVEN WITH 4 MEG!  (NOTE:  I wasn't 
running a bunch of programs at once).

Please do not take my comments about SCSI and IDE to mean that
SCSI is inferior to IDE.  When the drivers become available,
my drive should be at least equivalent to a similar IDE.

I guess the moral of the story is you either get a fast disk or
more RAM (ie refill RAM faster or don't go to disk often) for best
performance.  Processor speed/performance relates primarily to
application performance.


Eric Deal