From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Cyrix 486
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:37:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.025832.25158@u.washington.edu> echen@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ed Chen) writes:
>In article <9jcHl1ok6@cs.psu.edu> danb@gaff.physci.psu.edu (Dan Babcock) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.224947.19354@cis.uab.edu> hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
>>>>> Does this mean that AMD has built
>>>>> a 486-compatible chip with only a 16mb real memory addressing capability?
>>>>
>>>Peter's right of course.  The idea is great.  it's the calling it a 486
>>>that sucks with two straws.  I mean, is a 486 a 486 or is it a 16bit-wide
>>>buss superfast 386sx....  They should have used another number... it;s
>>
>>PC Magazines had an editorial a while ago that recommended its readers
>>buy only 486's (similar to how they advocated the 386 a few years
>>ago - except this time they're nuts). As a result I would expect all
>>chip clones from now on to use the "486" number to please the
>>ignorant consumers and magazines.
>>
>
>IBM's 386SLC claims a ~90% performance improvement over the Intel 386SX.  It
>has a 16K (I think) cache & faster core.   I agree with Dan that this Cyrix
>486 stuff is all marketing hype, but nonetheless, a good one from the business
>point of view.  
>			
>							Ed

This is all either (1) very funny (2) sickening (3) stupid  (4) painfully
true.  I recall that Intel and AMD "duked it out" in court over the '386
number.  AMD won (as I recall) with the idea that '386 was a name for a
"capability" rather than a specific chip.  seemed reasonable.  Now here
goes Cyrix taking off without calibrating their INS and they fly 180 degrees
away from this idea.

Several points come to mind.  

1.  When "joe blow" buys a 486 machine, what is he getting?  (a) a real "intel
inside" 486 (joe blow doesn't always know what "intel inside" means and it
is probably impossible to educate him totally)  (b) a "funny" 486 that doesn't
run as fast as his buddy's, although they both have the same -xx after the
chip number (clock rate)  (c) a sparc that Sun changed the label on the
chip in order to try to sell a few of the slower workstations around now?
(d) none of the above?  (e) all of the above?

2.  Along comes intel with the new X2 486's that double the clock internal to
the chip to improve performance.  Great idea as we all know.  Tandy promptly
buys them, drops them in a 25mhz chassis and Viola!!  a 50mhz 486 machine!
Again, it won't run as fast as my buddy's with a REAL 486/50, but I knew that
when I bought it (no, I didn't buy one).  Can Joe Blow understand this?  I
doubt it.  This is not Intel's fault, as they are providing us with a better
chip.  However, it is going to make it interesting to buy a machine as these
things hit the market.  One thing I'm sure happy about....  the cpu chips are
getting "bigger" each year physically.  At 45 years old, if I'm gonna have to
open up each machine I buy and eyeball the CPU chip to see what's really in
there, and who made it, at least it doesn't have to be written in 1-point
type so that I can read it easily!  :^)

Bob

-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !