The 386sx is a lower pin count 386 that uses a 16
bit bus insted of the
32bit again for lower cost and lower power. Bus bandwith was not half
as it is faster than that.
Yeah, but it's still a 'downgrade'. But the 386SX was a fairly good
success, and I take back anything bad I said about it. But once again, the
386SX didn't give the 386 all it's glory.
What's better? The 386sx or 386dx. From looking at the suffixes, it
appears that it would be the sx, but then, wouldn't that make a
double-downgrade, and screw everyone? I'm just saying this, because I have
(had - it's now parts) Gateway 386DX/25, and Compaq 386SX/20 (SLT386s/20).
The Compaq could run more things quicker than the Gateway. Or is my case
just a freak of nature or because of that majic stuff called Cache?
A 386/SX with Cache could beat a no-cache 386DX... but the DX had
the larger memory address range and a better bandwidth to memory
32 bit rather than 16 bit.
My gateway 386 DX25 (now being scrapped to fit in a 486 or Pentium
motherboard would probably work pretty well compared with the 386SX25
You can pick up a lot of speed with a good cache.
Bill