486DX/SX (was: Re: Classic != IBM AT)

From: jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net <(jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net)>
Date: Fri Nov 6 19:13:20 1998

> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:10:07 -0600 (CST)
> Reply-to: classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu
> From: Doug Yowza <yowza_at_yowza.com>
> To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers" <classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: 486DX/SX (was: Re: Classic != IBM AT)
> X-To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>

> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Zane H. Healy wrote:
>
> > As for a Math CoPro for the 486, I'm not sure I ever saw a 487 chip, but I
> > always figured that they took the chips that didn't cut it as a normal
> > processor but had a good Math CoPro, and sold them as 487's.
>
> Has it been 10 years since the 486 came out? It must be getting close.
> In any case, I think Max was right about the 487 really being just a 486
> in a different package, and the 486SX was disabled by some logic when the
> 487 was present. I seem to recall that some software/hardware was able to
> use the 486SX/487 combo as a crude multiprocessor box.

Correct to restate:

487 is like 486dx with extra 1 pin and wired in a way to turn off the
486sx. Wasteful and expensive.

I usually don't personally OWN any SX machines unless for a very
good reason in very specific types like notebooks. No point in
saving few bucks.

original Celerons are like today's Pentium PRO SX but the 300A and
333 is fine Celerons.

Jason D.
>
> -- Doug
>
>
email: jpero_at_cgocable.net
Pero, Jason D.
Received on Fri Nov 06 1998 - 19:13:20 GMT