Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!pacbell!belltec!jim From: jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Intel announces P9 as 80386SX Summary: Why would you want to use this beastie? Message-ID: <233@belltec.UUCP> Date: 20 Jun 88 14:28:19 GMT References: <6560@cup.portal.com> Organization: Bell Technologies, Fremont, CA Lines: 32 In article <6560@cup.portal.com>, mslater@cup.portal.com writes: > The P9 goes public! > > Intel's long-rumored P9 processor is now officially the 80386SX. It is > fully software-compatible with the 386 but has a 16-bit data bus and a 24- > bit address bus. Bus timing is very similar to the 386. The 386SX is.... Oh, I should have left in the part about Compaq coming out with a machine based on the 386SX. The question has to be raised: why would anyone want to base an entire new machine on this chip? The answer is: (drum roll faintly growing in the backround) COST!!. But is it worth it? Cost breakdown for a computer (all approximations for a reasonably powerful machine): Hard disk $200, 1 meg of memory $300, Chassis and cables $100, keyboard and monitor $75, disk and video controllers $75, Misc. required logic and PC board $175, and the cost of the CPU. So on a machine that costs $1100 to build, the CPU is a small percentage of that. Sure, you can still save $100 by using the 386SX, but is it worth having only the 55% to 70% performance (reasonable benchmarks are closer to 55% than to 70%)? I think not. If you want the 386 compatibility for Sys V.3 or 3.1 or Windows, or X Windows or Sun NeWs, than the performance is the key. If you are running Dos, stay with a fast 286 and really save on cost. An end user difference of $300 does not justify an entire new machine. But perhaps a daughter board to replace a 286 so you can run V.3 ..... -Jim Wall Bell Technologies Inc. "My ideas are just that, and no more" Which applies equally to a fig newton.