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