>From: "John R Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Walt Mankowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mersenne discussion
>list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Mersenne: 386SX
>Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:30:34 -0800
>
> > > 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.
It ought to be cheaply upgradable to a low pentium, which could be useful
also as a computer for, for example, text editing while the main one is
otherwise occupied.
Nathan
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
