🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug8.004020.12422@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) writes:
> In article <BsL317.G7G@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug3.192630.23363@sbcs.sunysb.edu> kskapin@csws8.ic.sunysb.edu (Keith T Skapinski) writes:
> >
> >>This is all fine and dandy in theory. Yes a 486 performes operations in 1
> >>clock cycle and a 386 performs operations in 2 clock cycles. It would
> >>seem that a 486/25 would be like a 386/50 (if there was such a thing) but 
> >>this is not the case. there is much more going on than just how fast the
> >>processes does the operation like memory speed, etc. It actual
> >>use, as documented in many magazines, the 386/40 is faster than the 486SX.
> >>Test were done with Norton SI, powermeter, etc. which really mean nothing.
> >>Also, calculations were performed using Lotus 1-2-3, documents formatted
> >>using word processors, etc. The 386/40 was faster than the 486SX in all
> >>cases.
> >
> >I'd read something ages and ages ago (when the 486SX first 
> >came out in fact) that the speed difference between the 836 
> >and 486 would actually take place if you were using 32 bit 
> >software, eg. OS/2 and various Unices. Running DOS and Win-
> >dows apps the 386 of the same clock speed would be a little 
> >slower but not by much. 
> >
> >So a 386/40 could well be faster than a 486DX/25 or 486SX/25. 
> >Depends on the code you run. 
> >
> >Experience shows this to be the case. My 386/40 runs rings 
> >around the older 486 machines around here. 
> 
> This is the very first time I have every  heard anyone claim of such silly
> nonsense.  A 386DX40 beating a 486DX25 what can you provide to support this?
> Math functions with a 387DX? SPECS?  Any code run ona 486DX such as the 25 would
> be alot faster than any existing 386DX machine.

Can I help out? I use a 386DX/40 at home and a 486DX/25 at work. Both have 8
megs of 70ns RAM and both run OS/2 v2. 
 
I can't tell the difference speed-wise. They are about the same. BTW, both
have Connor 120meg hard drives. If what I am doing required a maths co-pro,
then the 486 would win by miles, but nothing I do requires a co-pro (waste of
space for most people......).
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.