My herd has herds!

[Ken g6]

Poking around on the same site where BK discovered the Cyrix Chili Pepper, I found this herd. It just so happens that I have two of these chips in my herd.

Unfortunately, they're slower than normal 486s. Maybe I need to run five clients on them instead of one?

 

[BurntKooshie]

I found that site about a month ago - the bookmark was burning a hole in my HD (I think the Cyrix will finish it off...hehe). I figured it was time to share

BTW - might I ask how much slower an AMD 486 is? Its a 486...essentially the same as an intel one, just tweaked a little bit. I know the Cyrix 486 was like a "3.5 x86", but I thought that the AMD 486 was comparable....i could be wrong though!

 

[networkman]

Sorry, BK, I'm afraid you're wrong.

The AMD 486 DX4-100 was very comparable to the Intel chip of the same speed; what you're probably thinking of are the IBM chips that were released in the SLC and DLC lines.. those were very much like 386 processors. I can tell you quite alot about those! I'll give IBM credit for one thing: the 486SLC2-66 was the most heavily modified 386 I've ever seen!

 

[Viztech]

I had several AMD 486DX 100s in the herd. They actually ran RC5 at about the same rate as an Intel 486DX2-66.
I also had a Power Stacker 133 based on an AMD 586-133 chip. It was equally disapointing in RC5 performance.
Strangely, I had an AMD 486DX-66 that OCed to 80mhz just fine, and cracked RC5 just like an Intel.

viz

edit-It looks as though NWM and I had differing mileage.
When you consider that this was during a time when motherboard performance varied greatly. Hence my favorable performance with the AMD 486-66 in a Digital Equipment machine, and unfavorable in the AST 486-100.

 

[BurntKooshie]

say again? Maybe I'm a bit confused, (its early in the morn! ), but I think what you are saying is that amd's were comparable, but that those from IBM were not, that they were super beefed up 386's with the 486 moniker....

If that's what you were saying, at least about AMD, that's what I thought....if not....then I have to learn that posting at near 3 in the morn isn't good

 

[BurntKooshie]

AMD's 586's were just 486's clocked higher, with 16kb of L1 unified cache. The DX4's from AMD included only 8kb Unified L1 cache (maybe not enough!?!), while intels DX4 was at 16kb (up from the 8kb in the DX2's).

 

[Russ]

<< but that those from IBM were not, that they were super beefed up 386's with the 486 moniker.... >>



That's correct. The specific CPU's that he's referring used the same socket as the 386. Also, many of the boards had the processor soldered on. I built quite a few systems with them.

Russ, NCNE

 

[BurntKooshie]

Cyrix has a tradition of overstepping their naming boundries The Cyrix 486...not quite a 486 The Cyrix 586....not quite a pentium. The Cyrix 686...not quite a PPro (and we all know about the FPU performance)....the 686mx/M2....not quite a P2....Hymmm........GOD ITS EARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*defenestrates himself*