Sender: Alain Borel From: Alain DOT Borel AT icma DOT unil DOT ch Subject: Re: 386 SX versus DX - 'int' datatransfer Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: <378F6F22 DOT 36FA AT ns DOT sympatico DOT ca> <7mqps7$13r$3 AT news DOT luth DOT se> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990517 ("Psychonaut") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.1 (i586)) NNTP-Posting-Host: pcbch3207h.unil.ch Message-ID: <379d9e5c.0@cisun5000.unil.ch> Date: 27 Jul 1999 13:56:12 +0100 X-Trace: 27 Jul 1999 13:56:12 +0100, pcbch3207h.unil.ch Lines: 34 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Martin Str|mberg wrote: > Klaas (klaas AT ns DOT sympatico DOT ca) wrote: > : Rob Kramer wrote: > : > One of my applications (involving a GIF-decoder) I recently tried on a > : > 386 SX machine. The decoder is terribly slow in that case. The original > : > pre-DJGPP obsolete 16-bit version of the application is way faster. (I'm > : > not sure whether the 32-bit version is faster than the 16-bit version on > : > a 386 DX) > [Klippa, klapp, kluppit.] > : Do you use any floating point math? The SX would have to emulate, which > : wuold be considerably slower. > Eeerh... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the 386(whatever) didn't > have a FPU at all, no matter what XX. I'm looking at a fine sample of > 386DX-25 right now, and it _does_ _not_ have a FPU. Correct. > It is the 486DX that has a FPU while 486SX don't (or it even have one > but disabled - so the result is the same as not having one). Right. If memory serves, the difference between the 386SX and SX is the bus width: the SX only has a 16-bit bus ("32-bit? What for? Who needs such computing power?"), thus reducing the cost of the system by some factor (probably a large factor is I remember the prices at that time). Thus running 32-bit code (or more exactly: using 32-bit data) takes a huge performance hit when performed on a 386SX. -- Alain Borel