My second PC was a 486 SLC 33 and it was absolutely abysmal. It cost almost as much as the 486 DX 33 but the man in the shop assured me that the SLC was almost as powerful. How he lied...
My friends had a 486 DX 50 and a DX2 66 respectively. With my SLC I could only play Doom in low detail and by reducing the screen size a few times. In other words, it performed more like a 386 than a 486. Doom 2 was out of the question, being a slideshow of about 5 fps in high detail and barely playable in low detail (about 10-12fps).
Other games suffered too - UFO Terror From The Deep was so slow the mouse cursor was hard to track. It seemed I got totally ripped off paying £1000 for a PC that was less than half as fast as the DX-2 66 my friend bought for just £1100.
I was stuck with that sodding PC for 2 years, but at least it taught me how to use DOS and edit my AUTOEXEC and CONFIG to squeeze every possible bit of performance out of it.
As it happens I got buggered again when I bought my 3rd PC. They guy sold me a Pentium 133 for £1400 but when I got it home and booted it up the BIOS read "AMD K5 100MHZ"... I called him and he assured me the K5 chip was actually FASTER than a real Pentium 133 (despite costing half the price, no doubt why he sold them to his sucker customers). So I loaded Quake and did a timerefresh, only to score 11fps compared to my friends P133's 19.6.
The happy ending was I stole a Pentium 200 CPU from the exact same guy's shop over a year later and my timerefresh score went up to 32fps!
So yeah, the SLC was bad... performed similar to the laptop 486 33 chips of the time.
I5-2500K @ 4.0Ghz + R9 290 + 8GB DDR3 1333 :: I3-540 @ 4.2 GHZ + 6870 4GB DDR3 2000 :: E6300 @ 2.7 GHZ + 1950XTX 2GB DDR2 800 :: A64 3700 + 1950PRO AGP 2GB DDR400 :: K63+ @ 550MHZ + V2 SLI 256 PC133:: P200 + MYSTIQUE / 3Dfx 128 PC66