cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (03/12/90)
In article <1793@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: $sl197009@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chima Echeruo) writes: $>I have read in Byte that there are going to be versions of the 286 at 25 Mhz. $>Is this true? $I've heard rumors that either AMD or Harris is going to produce a 25 MHz 286. Harris already has 25 MHz parts, and AMD supposedly will have theirs out soon. $That is the route I'm taking, I'm dumping my 16 MHz 286 for an ALR PowerFlex $and plopping a 386SX board in it. I don't need the full 32-bit capabilities $of the 386 (yet), just something to run 386 software. This brings up a question for anyone out there who has a PowerFlex with the 486 board (I know, not a very common configuration): how well does it perform as a 486 system? I'm personally a little bit leery of a 16-bit machine being given a brain transplant with a 32-bit processor. I can see switching from a 286 to a 386SX as being pretty easy to engineer, but I have to wonder how good a job they did of designing in the capabilities for the 486. Obviously, the 486 board will contain main memory (how much?), but how will the rest of the system perform? -- Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca <std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n"; **************************************************************************** "So sorry, I never meant to break your heart ... but you broke mine."
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (03/14/90)
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) writes: >In article <1793@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >$sl197009@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chima Echeruo) writes: >$>I have read in Byte that there are going to be versions of the 286 at 25 Mhz. >$>Is this true? >$I've heard rumors that either AMD or Harris is going to produce a 25 MHz 286. > > Harris already has 25 MHz parts, and AMD supposedly will have theirs out >soon. > >$That is the route I'm taking, I'm dumping my 16 MHz 286 for an ALR PowerFlex >$and plopping a 386SX board in it. I don't need the full 32-bit capabilities >$of the 386 (yet), just something to run 386 software. > > This brings up a question for anyone out there who has a PowerFlex with >the 486 board (I know, not a very common configuration): how well does it >perform as a 486 system? I'm personally a little bit leery of a 16-bit >machine being given a brain transplant with a 32-bit processor. I can see >switching from a 286 to a 386SX as being pretty easy to engineer, but I >have to wonder how good a job they did of designing in the capabilities >for the 486. Obviously, the 486 board will contain main memory (how much?), >but how will the rest of the system perform? From my understanding, the 486 on a PowerFlex is shoehorned into the 16-bit data bus of the 286, but I may be wrong. The 286 to 386SX upgrade is logical since the 386SX has a 16-bit bus. A very logical upgrade, but the 486, I'm not going to try to rationalize that one. The card may have a chipset that takes priority over the chip set on the motherboard, who knows? // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
rossp@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ross PORTER) (03/15/90)
In article <1827@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >>A question for anyone with an ALR PowerFlex with the 486 board. >>I'm personally a little bit leery of a 16-bit >>machine being given a brain transplant with a 32-bit processor. >>Obviously, the 486 board will contain main memory (how much?). Byte magazine reports that the 486 upgrade is not a real kludger. Certainly, there is a 16-bit-bus-bottleneck, but this is greatly eased by the on-chip cache. Note that there is no main memory on the 486 board. Check out the Byte article (11-89, pp. 110-113), note the floating-point benchmarks especially.
ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) (03/15/90)
In article <1827@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
->$That is the route I'm taking, I'm dumping my 16 MHz 286 for an ALR PowerFlex
->$and plopping a 386SX board in it. I don't need the full 32-bit capabilities
->$of the 386 (yet), just something to run 386 software.
->
-> This brings up a question for anyone out there who has a PowerFlex with
->the 486 board (I know, not a very common configuration): how well does it
->perform as a 486 system? I'm personally a little bit leery of a 16-bit
->machine being given a brain transplant with a 32-bit processor. I can see
->switching from a 286 to a 386SX as being pretty easy to engineer, but I
->have to wonder how good a job they did of designing in the capabilities
->for the 486. Obviously, the 486 board will contain main memory (how much?),
->but how will the rest of the system perform?
-
-From my understanding, the 486 on a PowerFlex is shoehorned into the 16-bit
-data bus of the 286, but I may be wrong. The 286 to 386SX upgrade is logical
-since the 386SX has a 16-bit bus. A very logical upgrade, but the 486, I'm
-not going to try to rationalize that one. The card may have a chipset that
-takes priority over the chip set on the motherboard, who knows?
-
One of the PC Mags had a review about 1-2 months ago. Basically from
what I remember of the review, the PowerFlex 486 was equal in performance
to the compared Compaq 386 33Mh machine. The 16-bit bus does take its
toll, though, especially in memory access. In fact, I believe the
486 was actually SLOWER in memory access times than the 286 or 386 PF.
But, the bottom line was for a very low price, you could have a very
nice upgrade path or a decently priced i486 machine. Of course, if you
read the ALR stuff, the chip "add-on options" are not limited to
the 386SX or the i486 -- at least they say they are working on "other"
options. BTW, I have an ALR PF 286. At least out here, if you buy
one before March 31st, they will throw in the 386 board "free".
--
Marc Ries
ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (ARPA)
somewhere!trwind!venice!ries (UUCP)
#include <std.disclaimer>jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (03/18/90)
ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) writes: > One of the PC Mags had a review about 1-2 months ago. Basically from > what I remember of the review, the PowerFlex 486 was equal in performance > to the compared Compaq 386 33Mh machine. The 16-bit bus does take its > toll, though, especially in memory access. In fact, I believe the > 486 was actually SLOWER in memory access times than the 286 or 386 PF. > > But, the bottom line was for a very low price, you could have a very > nice upgrade path or a decently priced i486 machine. Of course, if you > read the ALR stuff, the chip "add-on options" are not limited to > the 386SX or the i486 -- at least they say they are working on "other" > options. BTW, I have an ALR PF 286. At least out here, if you buy > one before March 31st, they will throw in the 386 board "free". Maybe ALR will produce a 20 MHz 386SX card and drop the 16 MHz one after Intel releases the 20 MHz 386SX's. That would be a nice edition to the PowerFlex upgrades. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */