Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site smu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!mike From: mike@smu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: [sequoia!brownell@harvard.ARPA (Dave Message-ID: <15000005@smu.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 16:45:00 EDT Article-I.D.: smu.15000005 Posted: Thu Sep 20 16:45:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 01:16:11 EDT References: <13092@sri-arpa.UUCP> Lines: 12 Nf-ID: #R:sri-arpa:-1309200:smu:15000005:000:411 Nf-From: smu!mike Sep 20 15:45:00 1984 <> Timings that said the 86 is faster than the 286?? That would be news to me. The 286 makes much better use of the cycles it has than does the 86. Everything is at least one clock faster; some things are *much* faster (block moves, mutiply/divide, multi-bit shifts). I would bet that a 6 mhz 286 beats an 8mhz 86. Besides, a 286 is much more fun to play with than an 86. Mike McNally ...convex!smu!mike