Re: "586" rumours?

Article View: comp.sys.intel

Article #226

#226

From: Mitch Kahn
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 21:43

19 lines
1464 bytes

gordon@robots.oxford.ac.uk (Gordon Buxton) writes:


] In article <1992Aug07.203524.7205@sco.COM> md@sco.COM (Michael Davidson) writes:
] >Can you conceive of any reason why Intel would *bother* to produce a P5
] >processor if it *didn't* run 486 code (which is all that will be available
] >for it to run intially) faster than a 486 running at the same clock speed?
]
] Yes, I can.  The 386SX is a little slower than the 286 when executing
] some code at the same clock speed.  It's certainly no faster.  Now, I
] wonder why the 386SX is selling *a little bit* faster than the 286?

Huh? You aren't talking about a 386SX in *virtual 86" mode are you??

]
--
|  Mitch Kahn              | "I hope you know that this will go down on |
|  mkahn@sedona.intel.com  |  your permanent record..."                 |
*************************MY OWN OPINIONS*********************************

Technical Details

Message-ID: <MKAHN.92Aug11144300@hopi.sedona.intel.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|inews!mkahn

References:

<DOCONNOR.92Aug4081003@potato.sedona.intel.com> <1992Aug6.172138.10883@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug07.203524.7205@sco.COM> <4254@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|inews!mkahn
From: mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: "586" rumours?
Message-ID: <MKAHN.92Aug11144300@hopi.sedona.intel.com>
Date: 11 Aug 92 21:43:00 GMT
References: <DOCONNOR.92Aug4081003@potato.sedona.intel.com>
 <1992Aug6.172138.10883@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug07.203524.7205@sco.COM>
 <4254@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Sender: news@inews.intel.com
Organization: i960 New Product Development
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: gordon@robots.oxford.ac.uk's message of 11 Aug 92 15:23:10 GMT

Reply to Parent Message