lasky@iris.Berkeley.EDU (Ty Lasky) (08/10/90)
I am considering buying either a 33 MHz or 25 MHz 386 system from PC
Brand. I spoke with a salesman today, and he said that the base systems
come with a 32K cache, but the 33 MHz machine cache cannot be expanded
due to board architecture. Apparently, the 25 MHz machine can be
expanded to at least 64K. What I would like to know is, is a 32K cache enough?
Also, comments about PC Brand in general would be helpful.
Finally, on a loosely related topic, would a 386, 25MHz with 387 be
faster than a 386, 33MHz w/o 387? For background, I do the usual word
processing, spreadsheet, etc, but I also do a great deal of
computationally intensive simulations (robot control, if you must know).
Thus, I AM interested in which would give faster floating point operations.
Please respond by e-mail, as our site has a short hold time, and I would
probably miss any posts the the group. I will summarize any interesting
results.
Thanks!
Ty A. Lasky
Robotics Research Lab
University of California, Davis
Internet: TALASKY@ucdavis.edu or lasky@iris.ucdavis.edu
BITNET: TALASKY@ucdavis
UUCP: {ucbvax, lll-crg, sdcsvax}!ucdavis!iris!laskykoziarz@halibut.nosc.mil (Walter A. Koziarz) (08/13/90)
In article <7557@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> lasky@iris.Berkeley.EDU (Ty Lasky) writes: > >Finally, on a loosely related topic, would a 386, 25MHz with 387 be >faster than a 386, 33MHz w/o 387? For background, I do the usual word > For pure floating point math -- the answer is an unqualified YES. As one data point I provide the following -- My 10MHz, 0 Wait-state, Zenith Z-100 (8088 plus 8087; and both run at 10MHz, btw). is almost 4X _FASTER_ in floating point math than a 25 MHz 80386dx machine sans 80387. This test used THE SAME EXECUTABLE for both systems, obviously an executable *using* '386-code (rather than 8086-code) may alter the results. Walt K.