schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (02/07/90)
In article <25c86533:4479.2comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@vpnet.UUCP> akcs.amparsonjr@vpnet.UUCP (Anthony M. Parson, Jr.) writes: | Never got to try an 80286 with generic cadd, but I | will say an 80386 (25 mhz) without a coprocessor, is STILL faster by far | than the 8088/8087 combination. Moral: get a fast 80286 or 80386, and | possibly save the cost of buying a math coprocessor. Of course, it depends | how complicate your ddrawings are, how large, if you use letters / fonts | to record dimensions, how many layers, etc. My father runs Generic CADD on a 12.5 Mhz 286 w/ 287. A year ago, this configuration was cheaper than a 16 Mhz 386 w/o 387 and ran Generic CADD faster, so that was the deciding factor. A 25 Mhz 386 would probably edge the 286 w/ 287, but it's probably not worth the added expense. It's incredible how much that math coprocessor speeds things up. I run math intensive stuff on machines without it and feel like the CPU is full of sludge. -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) Peace and Prejudice Don't Mix! (unknown add copy)