Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (160373)	2/27/2002 8:53:31 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: I've used plenty of 286 and 386 class machines, and I can tell you bar-none that 386 outperformed its predecessor by a significant and noticeable amount. That was what sold the processor - not the "32-bittness". Weren't you one of the ones telling us how 386 was slower on 16 bit code? (and I showed that you were wrong). As a side fact, consider the 386-SX, which was a 386 processor without the 32-bits. This CPU actually outsold the 386 in volumes, LOL!!! A. That's nonsense and you know it. B. The 386SX was marketed as a 32-bit chip that could run 32-bit software - it just didn't have the same FSB as its bigger brother. And, if you want to go by bus width instead of register size and address range, then pentium, Athlon, and P4 are all 64 bits, since that's the width of their connections to the their north bridges.