Quote Originally Posted by Drwho? View Post
well, AMD did copy the design of the 80386SX ... humm hummmm

"In 1988, Intel introduced the i386SX, a version of the 386, designed to enable low-cost systems software-compatible with the 386.

Cost was reduced by narrowing the external data bus to 16 bits from the internal 32, which in some designs can halve the number of RAM chips, and eliminating economically unusable pins such as those address lines required to support over 16 MB of RAM (too expensive for the low-cost systems this processor targeted).

Performance suffered both due to the narrower external databus, and the typical lack of cache memory in i386sx systems.

The original i386 was subsequently renamed i386DX to avoid confusion, though this would rather cause confusion later when the DX in the name i486DX instead indicated floating-point capability. The i387SX was a compatible i387 part (i.e. with a 16-bit databus) available as an optional math-coprocessor. The 386SX was packaged in a surface-mount QFP, and rarely offered in a socket to allow for an upgrade.

A similar cost reduction was done for the 8088 CPU used in the original PC.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386SX

A little unfair comparison, in that you must know this

In 1991, AMD released its 386 processor. Like its predecessors, this model was identical to the Intel versions. AMD was licensed to produce clones of Intel products, right down to the microcode (the CPU’s firmware). This processor had two notable features. First, it was faster than the Intel model—40 MHz compared to a top speed of 33 MHz at Intel—and it was the first to sport the Windows Compatible logo on the package.
I only know this, because it was the first computer i had. Hard to say copying is the same thing as being licensed to clone...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ry,2008-3.html