*updating* 8088's

[Chuck Guzis]

On 19 Nov 2007 at 23:03, Allison wrote:

> Actually it's teh other way around the 386 was more efficient than
> 286 for the same clock speed.

In 16-bit mode, I seem to recall that the 386SX was a travesty of a 
CPU; a 16 MHz SX ran nowhere near as fast as a comparably-clocked 
286.  Early 386 boxes were nothing to crow about in 16-bit mode--and 
a 32-bit software base pretty much didn't exist early on--and the 
386SX was limited to 16MB of external memory, just like the 286.

Doubtless the 386SX board designs were low-budged also, which 
probably figured into things.  Some 286 vendors made a big thing of 
the fact that a 286 could execute 16-bit real mode code substantially 
faster than the 386SX.  For example:

http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an121.pdf

On the other hand, the 386SX could execute 32-bit code.  That is, if 
you had any to run in 1989.

Cheers,
Chuck