860088m@aucs.uucp (Spiros Mancoridis) (02/09/90)
I am interested in purchasing a 386 machine. Judging from the postings in various newsgroups the only difference between a 386SX based machine and a 386DX based machine is speed because the 386SX has a 16-bit bus compared to a 386DX which has a 32-bit bus. If this is the only difference, why is there such a great difference in price? Regards Spiros Mancoridis
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (02/10/90)
In article <1990Feb8.223250.17994@aucs.uucp> 860088m@aucs.UUCP (Spiros Mancoridis) writes: >386SX has a 16-bit bus compared to a 386DX which has a 32-bit bus. >If this is the only difference, why is there such a great difference >in price? Because Intel "sold the farm" and second sourced the 286 to everyone and their brother. Now Intel wants market share, and they're prepared to cut their margin on the 386SX to get it. (Hence the Intel billboards of a few months ago.) They believe (perhaps rightfully so) that most of us would rather buy a 386SX (motherboard/system) than a 286; especially when the two are priced within $50 of each other. The January edition of MicroTimes (a free rag, in most computer stores, at least in LA) had an interview with the CEO of Intel that covered this subject in exhaustive detail. Anyway, Intel is aiming their strategy right at the 286 second source suppliers. Since the DX sells well enough by itself, and Intel doesn't see the need to cut its profit margin on that item. Looks like Intel learned well at the masters' knee, the Japanese have used these tactics for years (memory chips, etc.) Another possible reason for big price deltas, especially on complete systems, is that the DX memory must be installed in multiples of four, while the SX can be done with multiples of two; big difference when you're useing megabyte simms. Some of these opinions are the product of a fertile imagination, and very likely don't reflect those of my employer!!!!!! Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley
soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) (02/10/90)
In article <1990Feb8.223250.17994@aucs.uucp>, 860088m@aucs.uucp (Spiros Mancoridis) writes: > I am interested in purchasing a 386 machine. Judging from the > postings in various newsgroups the only difference between a > 386SX based machine and a 386DX based machine is speed because the > 386SX has a 16-bit bus compared to a 386DX which has a 32-bit bus. > If this is the only difference, why is there such a great difference > in price? Also, the SX wimps out (currently) at 16 MHz. This reduced bandwidth reduces the price. There is another (shudder) _marketing_ reason. Intel wants the SX to _kill_ use of the 286 chip since second sources exist for it; so, they want everybody to become totally dependant upon Intel Corp. Of course, in Real (DOS) mode a 386SX will be blown away by one of Harris's 200 MHz 286. BTW, Motorola is trying the same thing with the 68040 and 88000. The big difference, howsomever, is the Motorola's chips work right the first time, and no changes are needed to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and the EISA bus- Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt the EISA manufacturers). Yes, I'm paranoid, but then, I am a motorcyclist. :-) :-) -- John R. Campbell ...!uunet!lgnp1!penrij!soup (soup@penrij.LS.COM) "In /dev/null no one can hear you scream"
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (02/12/90)
In article <1990Feb8.223250.17994@aucs.uucp> 860088m@aucs.UUCP (Spiros Mancoridis) writes: | | I am interested in purchasing a 386 machine. Judging from the | postings in various newsgroups the only difference between a | 386SX based machine and a 386DX based machine is speed because the | 386SX has a 16-bit bus compared to a 386DX which has a 32-bit bus. | If this is the only difference, why is there such a great difference | in price? There isn't. The price of a 16MHz 386DX is only about $200 more than the SX. Going to a fast CPU *will* drive up the price of the CPU, supposrt chips, memory, etc. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu (Dave Newton the Late) (03/02/90)
In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes: > dependant upon Intel Corp. Of course, in Real (DOS) mode > a 386SX will be blown away by one of Harris's 200 MHz 286. Wow!! 200 MHz!! Are you sure it's not that Chang-thing again? ;-D -- David L. Newton | uunet!marque!carroll1!dnewton (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha WI 53186
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (03/03/90)
In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes: > to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and > the EISA bus- Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt > the EISA manufacturers). Perhaps I'm a bit out of touch as I haven't really been following all the i486 sagas, but, is this really true. I am about to buy an AST 386/33 machine and was going to pay the extra $ to get the EISA. I have already decided that MCA is not appropriate for me at this time. Will EISA bus be hampered by the 486 "fixes"? Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) (03/10/90)
In article <572@auvax.AthabascaU.CA> kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) writes: }In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes: }} the EISA bus- Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt }} the EISA manufacturers). }Will EISA bus be hampered by the 486 "fixes"? O.K., I missed it. What did Intel do to the 486 and what are the implications for EISA? regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbnmva!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbnmva!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (You may now R'eply. Forwarding from cbnews to my mail address now works!!!)
ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu ($anjay "lock-on" $ingh - Indy Studies) (03/11/90)
In article <572@auvax.AthabascaU.CA> kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) writes: >In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes: >> to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and >> the EISA bus- Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt >> the EISA manufacturers). > >Will EISA bus be hampered by the 486 "fixes"? > If this is true, it's an underhanded move by Intel. As for Intel's attempt to smother the market with the SX chip, sales for the SXs are indeed going up- at the expense of low end DX systems. Does anyone know anything about a dispute between Intel and Advanced Micro Devices over a license for the 386 chip? -- "No one had the guts... uunnttiill nnooww..." |-$anjay "lock [+] on" $ingh ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu N.A.R.C. ]I[-| "A modern-day warrior, mean mean stride, today's Tom Sawyer, mean mean pride." !being!mind!self!cogsci!AI!think!nerve!parallel!cybernetix!chaos!fractal!info!
mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater) (03/12/90)
>>In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes: >>> to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and >>> the EISA bus- Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt >>> the EISA manufacturers). >> >>Will EISA bus be hampered by the 486 "fixes"? >> >If this is true, it's an underhanded move by Intel. As for Intel's attempt to This is nonsense. Intel didn't do anything to sabotage EISA -- in fact, since Intel is the only supplier for EISA chip set, that would be quite a foolish move. What DID happen is that one of the bugs in the 486 turns out to affect EISA systems, but not MC systems. The bug is that the two cycles that comprise an interrupt acknowledge may not be consecutive bus cycles. As it turns out, the MC chip sets don't care. In the case of the EISA chip set, it is a bug compounding a bug: there is a bug in the EISA interrupt controller, for which Intel has provided a hardware workaround. Unfortunately, the workaround depends on the two INTA cycles being consecutive, so the workaround breaks when the 486 bug is triggered. Intel now has a revised workaround for the EISA chip set that works with the 486. >Does anyone know anything about a dispute between Intel and Advanced Micro >Devices over a license for the 386 chip? This case has been in arbitration for about 3 years. The hearings have recently concluded, and now the lawyers are preparing briefs. Then the arbiter has to try to make sense of it all. Look for a decision in the fall. Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report mslater@cup.portal.com -- "No one had the guts... u un nt ti il l n no ow w..." |-$anjay "lock [+] on" $ingh ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu N.A.R.C. ]I[-| "A modern-day warrior, mean mean stride, today's Tom Sawyer, mean mean pride." !being!mind!self!cogsci!AI!think!nerve!parallel!cybernetix!chaos!fractal!info!
kds@blabla.intel.com (Ken Shoemaker) (03/13/90)
This is really silly. The problem described has to do with an i486 bug that
touches a bug in the Intel EISA chip set. Both chips were designed
independently, and there certainly isn't any collaboration between the
groups to sabotage the EISA bus! Speaking only for myself, of course...
----------
Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos2.intel.com
uucp: ...{hplabs|decwrl|pur-ee|hacgate|oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!kds