🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25c86533:4479.2comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@vpnet.UUCP> akcs.amparsonjr@vpnet.UUCP (Anthony M. Parson, Jr.) writes:
>will say an 80386 (25 mhz) without a coprocessor, is STILL faster by far
>than the 8088/8087 combination.  Moral: get a fast 80286 or 80386, and
>possibly save the cost of buying a math coprocessor.  Of course, it depends

I haven't done any precise comparisons, but I watched a friend run Generic
CADD 2.0 on his 8mhz luggable XT with a 4 mhz 8087, and then tried running
the same thing on a Premium/286 10 mhz with no math chip.  There was no
contest.  The XT won easily.  Now I have a 386/20, and I haven't had a chance
to do any comparisons.  I also have a math chip.  But I would be willing to
bet my money on the XT against a 386 with no math chip.

My 386 has the option of EITHER an 80287 at 8 mhz (costs under $200) or
an 80387 at 20mhz (big bucks).  Needless to say, I chose the '287, since
I am a poor student and not doing big time number cruching or lots of CAD.
The motherboard is an X'Golden.  I think some other motherboards give this
same option.  When buying a budget system it is definitely a point to consider
if you are going to be wanting a math chip.

-- 
John Dudeck                           "You want to read the code closely..." 
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu             -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching 
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549          Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.