> > phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful
computational
> > work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that
> > probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and its
got
> > no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower
than
> > even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several
> > THOUSAND times slower.
>
> It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I
> don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point.
it doesn't.
However, even at 32 bit integer programming, figure the 16 bit 386SX will be
around 4-8 times slower than a 486 at the same clock speed, which in turn is
3-4 times slower than a pentium at the same clock speed. now throw in the
differential between the 16-25MHz range of the typical 386SX to the
400-600Mhz of a modern celeron or pentium or k6 today and we can figure
ANOTHER 20X slower. 386SX systems didn't use any level 2 cache either, and
only had like 8k of level 1 cache, and the 386SX memory bus took 2-3 clocks
minimum to transfer 16 bits with no burst cycle support.
All told, that 386SX will be something like 100 times slower than a bottom
of the barrel Celeron or K6 system and probably draw at least as much power.
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
