Processor names: Intel 80386SX? DX? SL?

Rip the Jacker

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
5,415
1
76
Alright. I'm a bit confused about what SX, DX, SL, and other acronyms stand for.

Could anyone please point these out? Do they actually stand for something?
 

Kyanzes

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,082
0
76
According to this page they stand for "Double-word eXternal" and "SX for Single-word eXternal". Never knew that and never really cared until you asked, even though I had a lot of CPUs (some of them integrated on the mobo) back then with such names. Of course it was common knowledge that SX had no FPU enabled whild DX had. Was an interesting period. I remember we had to replace quartz oscillator crystals to overclock the CPUs :)

I remember there were SLCs also :)

Addition: most of the results are defining the SLC/DLC line CPUs as reduced consumption solutions so it is possible (not sure though) that the LC tag means "low consumption" while the meaning of S and D remains the same as it was already described above. Which reminds me that I really saw laptops back then with such CPUs however I also met with desktop SLC/DLC CPUs. Most of these laptops were thicker than my Pundit.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
386: SX = 16-bit data path DX = 32-bit data path, neither one had a math coprocessor

486: SX = math coprocessor disabled, but full 32-bit data path, DX = math coprocessor enabled.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
They said it all and it is correct. If you want a good vintange processor then look for a DX or DX4
 

JimPhelpsMI

Golden Member
Oct 8, 2004
1,261
0
0
Hi, You got some pretty good answers here, but I am much older than most. Here is a little more info on the old ones. DX2 was a clock doubling chip. It ran at twice the actual clock speed or 50 Mhz on a 25 Mhz clock. A DX4 was a tripler and ran at 75 Mhz on a 25 Mhz clock. They were good for updating a MB. Jim
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: bendixG15
even back then AMD was beating INTEL
Yep, my 386 - 40 MHz AMD was much nicer than intel's slower 33 MHz part.

AMD went through a bad period after the Pentium 1 got going though, since they only had fast 486 chips to compete. They kept being a couple of steps behind (e.g. K6 vs. Pentium II) until the first Athlons made them roughly on par with intel's P3.
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
Were the SX's FPU functions disabled only to offer a lower price point or could they have been defective too (as with contemporary cache or pipelines, etc.)? I remember having a 486SX on-board with an OverDrive® socket which, despite the nomenclature, did not just accept a math-coprocessor but a discrete CPU (DX or whathaveyou) -thus bypassing the on-board one.