From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: AMD rubbish????
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:10:31 GMT

In <1992Dec13.052027.15781@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>:

>MSD8227@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>>>I'm thinking of buying a PC, either a AMD386DX40 or an Intel 486SX25 - 33. I'
>>>been told that the AMD chip is unreliable and would appreciate some feedback
>>>Comments on relative speed between the machines also would be helpful.

>>The AMD386DX40 is a knockout, a home run, a slam dunk!  My brother
>>has a machine with this chip.  I am very impressed.

It's a damn good chip.

>>Do yourself a favor get the AMD machine, ok?  I still can't figure
>>out why anyone would consider buying a 486SX.

I considered it, and I did.  More details to follow.  And don't forget that the
486SX still has that internal 8K cache.

>I hope I'm not too late, but I have something to add.
>First, consider what's most important to you: price or performance.

>If you chose price, then get the 386-40.  If you chose performance,
>go with a 486SX-25 or above.

If you want a 486SX/25, why not a 33?  They're only about $50 to $75 more than
the 25.  That's a small price to pay for a 33% performance boost.

>I won't put down the 386DX-40; I have one because I chose price over
>performance and got a great deal.  You get a lot of power for the money.

Yes you do.  In fact I was debating between the 386/40 and the 486SX/25, not
being able to justify the cost of the next step up--the 486DX/33.  When I heard
that the 486SX/33 was released with an extra socket for easy upgrades to a
DX2/66, that settled matters immediately.

Of course, I had an eye on the future.  The 386/40 is and will remain the
de facto entry-level machine for quite some time.

>I also won't put down the 486SX.  Granted, when Intel first brought them
>out (the DX with a crippled math co-processor) they seemed ridiculous.
>Current 486SXs, however, have their own "mold."  The only thing you're
>missing as compared to the 486DX is the math coprocessor-but the AMD
>chip doesn't have one either.  This makes raw performance better on the
>486SX.

The original 486SXs were "crippled" 486s.  Soon Intel realized that it had a
potential marketing bonanza:  Many people want 486 performance but don't need
the co-processor (I'm one such person).  For me, the 486SX was *the* answer.
The difference between a 486DX/33 and a 486SX/33 is perhaps $250 to $300.
By the time I need a co-processor (if I ever do), I'll bet that the Overdrive
will cost under $300.  So for the same price as a 486DX/33, I'd then have a
486DX2/66, and I'd never suffer worse performance than I'd get from a DX/33.
For me it was a win-win situation (and a no-brainer of a decision), but only
once clock speeds of the 486SX exceeded 25 MHz (i.e. clearly faster than a
386DX/40).

>Some 386 boards are upgradeable; nearly all 486 motherboards can be
>upgraded though.  This is another plus for the 486SX.

I think it's easier for most 486SX models--especially since you can go
straight to a DX2 at double speed (SX/25 to DX2/50 and SX/33 to DX2/66) without
needing to replace a clock crystal or any other stuff on the motherboard.

>For price, buy 386DX-40.
>For speed, buy 486SX-25 or 33.

Once the "newness" of the 486SX/33 is gone and the price comes down accord-
ingly, there will be little difference between the 386/40 and 486SX/33.  It's
only (perhaps) a $150 difference now, and should come down in the future.

I just bought a system with a 486SX/33.  I'm very pleased with it.  I'm sure
I made the right decision with it.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
 teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,alt.activism.d,sci.environment