🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4911.25ce0291@uwovax.uwo.ca>, baer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
:: In article <25ce13f4.5fd6@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes:
:: We did some timings on computationally intensive programs, with relatively 
:: . . .  The 387/no cache/math chip configuration was 4-5 times 
:: faster.  I understand that the Intel 387 chip is considerably faster than
:: the 287 chip (even if we control for speed differences).  This seems to 
:: bear this out.  I have no timings on a 386sx-387sx combination, but 
:: I understand the 387sx chip is considerably faster than an equivalent
:: 287 chip.  [This implies that while a 16mHz 386sx machine may not be 
:: that much faster for most operations than a plain vanilla 12mHz 286,
:: and perhaps even a bit slower than a 16mHz 286, if it has a 387sx chip
:: it should be *much* faster than a 286-287 -- perhaps other newsgroup
:: contributors might care to comment on this].  

The 387sx is rumored to be pretty much a 387 with a 16-bit inteface glued
on.  The IIT 287 is essentially that (just a FAST 387 with a 16-bit interface
-- ok, so it's just 10% faster ;^).  So they still sit about even so long
as you run DOS code.  What's more, the IIT chip seems to be a bit cheaper
when you can find it.

:: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
:: Douglas Baer, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Sociology,
:: University of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 5C2

Charles Marslett
chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us