Sorry to bring back an ancient thread, but I wanted to note something that I don't think was mentioned: a 386 can still run silent, not requiring a fan. There are some exceptions, some of the initial/lower-end 486's maybe didn't need a fan. I've not come across any 386's with fans, but I suspect there were exceptions to that also - or at least, it doesn't hurt to put a heatsink+fan on a 386. I've cautiously put my knuckle on a running 386DX, and yes it was hot, but not excessively burning (and perhaps a heatsink might extend its lifespan). I've read about Pentiums getting molten hot and essentially melting themselves when ran without a fan. I wonder if its why you don't see too many 386 laptops- they do exist, but it just seems to me they aren't as plentiful as 486 laptops (but I could be wrong, I haven't thoroughly dig into the sales data on all that).
Fan's and heatsinks are (to me) like a radiator in a car - they are methods that let us use a machine beyond "normal" thermal limits. The whole 'evolution of thermal management" is an interesting thing to ponder about - because adding a fan to the system now has big implications to the noise and portability (i.e. laptops). Even at "near silent db", a rotating fan brings other hassles - a moving part to wear out, and in very quiet spaces you're still going hear them. Some think fans also are the cause of certain headaches (Steve Jobs was fairly opposed to them, but probably for other aesthetic reasons).
The other "interesting thing" about the 386 - which was mentioned - is exploring the "last of the ISA era" (and eat slot is same speed, though I'm not sure why nearly all those boards had a set of 16-bit ISA then at least 1 8-bit ISA, maybe just a space savings thing to provision for other components).
I happened to recently put together a 386DX-20 and a 386DX-33. Here are my notes about the 386DX-20:
https://voidstar.blog/setting-up-a-physical-x … hardware-80386/
The main motivation (along the lines of what the original post here was asking), I wanted to verify how well Second Reality would run on a 386. We hear the speculation that it requires a 486, which by '93 was fairly reasonable requirement. But despite 386 emulators, how well did that demo actually run for someone who didn't have the latest and greatest x86 hardware of 1994? And the answer is, indeed, it didn't run that well at all on a 386DX-20 (you can cheat and get some later model 1995+ fast video cards, but I mean to verify a period-correct equipment -- and doing that helps keep emulators honest, especially when you step out of turbo).
For my 2nd and faster 386DX-33, it plays Second Reality noticeably better (even with the same video card). Maybe it's difference in cache. I haven't found a case yet for this 386DX, I may built something out of acrylic. But seeing the difference in Flight Simulator between the 4.7MHz 8088 and a 33MHz 386 is very neat. I do have a '387 and so far only found Falcon 3.0 that makes use of it (aside from AutoCad). Then DesqVIEW is more interesting on a 386.
Another subtle difference is the 286/386 evolution to SIMM chips rather than DIP (but before the larger DIMM modules).
I think the "value" of a 386 is showing more of what it can't-yet-do (the 89-92 era titles), while being noticeable more capable than the 8088 (like SimCity struggles on the stock 8088).