tayyare wrote:

SCSI was and is faster/more reliable than any ISA EIDE controller/IDE Drive combination, period.

No it isn't. Stop posting bullsh*t and provide some actual proof hmkay?

Was the AMD 386DX40 actually that faster then the Intel equivalent or just an exotic alternative? At those ancient times I didn't even know AMD 386s existed 🤣... My 386SX 16/20Mhz soldered onboard my first computer (that sadly I'll never be able to find not having one only detail about the brand...) was Intel obviously.

386SX wrote:

Was the AMD 386DX40 actually that faster then the Intel equivalent or just an exotic alternative? At those ancient times I didn't even know AMD 386s existed 🤣... My 386SX 16/20Mhz soldered onboard my first computer (that sadly I'll never be able to find not having one only detail about the brand...) was Intel obviously.

Intel never made a 386DX-40MHz cpu. They had a 386SX-40Mhz, but i don't think any were made for socket use (anyone?)

The AMD 386DX-40MHz could keep up with an intel 486sx-25MHz in somethings, and was A LOT cheaper, and was faster than Intel's 386DX-33MHz. I think a lot of board manufacturers churned out a ton of soldered-on AMD 386DX-40MHz boards.

386SX wrote:

Was the AMD 386DX40 actually that faster then the Intel equivalent or just an exotic alternative? At those ancient times I didn't even know AMD 386s existed 🤣... My 386SX 16/20Mhz soldered onboard my first computer (that sadly I'll never be able to find not having one only detail about the brand...) was Intel obviously.

Here is some information on AMD 386 CPU's:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am386

schlang wrote:

tayyare wrote:

SCSI was and is faster/more reliable than any ISA EIDE controller/IDE Drive combination, period.

No it isn't. Stop posting bullsh*t and provide some actual proof hmkay?

Proof? What proof?

It is what it is because I said so!.. 😈

Yeah in your dreams maybe... most likely like everything in Turkey atm :p

Easy. Its used in Servers. Servers get the good sh1t. Good sh1t is cooler. And that's why its better than IDE.

Regarding SCSI vs IDE, I had similar fears that on a slow system, the CPU overhead would benefit SCSI systems, so I benched a couple of hard drives on the slowest system that I have:

OS = DOS 6.22
CPU = approximating an 8088 @ 3.33 MHz (K6III+ downclocked on a special Socket 7 system slower than an IBM XT).
SCSI HD = 73GB Seagate SCSI Ultra320, 10000 RPM, Adaptec Ultra160 controller.
EIDE HD = 20GB Seagate EIDE, 7200 RPM, on-board controller.

Speedsys results for SCSI:

Speedsys results for EIDE:

There are certain instances were one HD is better that the other in those results, but when I tested a game (Striker, DOS game from '80s) to be loaded using the the downclocked slow CPU, they were both similar in terms of seconds loading - around 5 seconds or so. In the end, I'm not going to waste a PCI slot for a SCSI controller to see next to no benefit...

thank you

"Specially slowed down machine"? Does not prove anything. SCSI is still the best. 😈

I find a large benefit of CF cards in 386 machines is the access time. Not so much data throughput or CPU load.

Anyone who doesn't like SCSI can send all their stuff to me.

tayyare wrote:

"Specially slowed down machine"? Does not prove anything. SCSI is still the best. 😈

It shows that at XT speeds, the CPU overhead should be exacerbated in favour of SCSI, especially with the hard disk/ controller combination used in my tests (more advanced on paper compared to the EIDE conterparts used), but it didn't. The EIDE setup was more than a match.

If it makes you happy, carry on with your 'best' mantra. Posting emoticons and absolutes is not helping your argument. For my needs, it's a waste of a PCI slot. And FWIW, my first ever PC builds all had SCSI, so it has its uses, but not for all cases.

Guys, why are you so stiff? At least the other guy is a German, so he has his reasons, but a Briton should know better. 😈

Do you really think that I'm in absolute need of proving some pointless claim to some strangers whom I never met, and most probably will never meet?

Why do you think the emoticons are there?

I'm just having fun.

Relax... 😎

Some people actually come here for serious discussion (not for unfunny 🤣). It's easy to hide behind forums, and pick and choose when you're 'joking', and when you're 'not joking'. So yeah, no argument then. Carry on, nothing to see.

I remember using the built-in EIDE port on my 486 in the mid-90's for web browsing and office tasks. I didn't think anything of HDD speed until I put in a SCSI controller. I recall the speed benefit feeling similar to when I upgraded from 8 MB of RAM to 32 MB. It was quite dramatic.

Will an (or any?) Intel 386 DX33 run well at 40 MHz? If so, how do they compare to the AMD DX40?

I did it in my 386 Face-off video. It's pretty much 1:1 within less than 1%.

So yeah, it's possible and it performs identically to the human eye.

j^aws wrote:

Some people actually come here for serious discussion (not for unfunny 🤣). It's easy to hide behind forums, and pick and choose when you're 'joking', and when you're 'not joking'. So yeah, no argument then. Carry on, nothing to see.

If my one of the first posts below sounds like "not joking" to you, yeah, no argument then. Carry on, nothing to see. 🤣

tayyare wrote:

Plus SCSI drives are heavier and make more noise which makes them "manly".

Plus the word "SCSI" sounds much nice to ears of anybody. You hear? "eideee": lame, "scuzzy" : cool!

Who cares a bout "real life examples"? What the f. is "real life", anyway?.. 🤣

tayyare wrote:

If my one of the first posts below sounds like "not joking" to you, yeah, no argument then. Carry on, nothing to see. 🤣

As I said: "...pick and choose when..."; try reading harder.

feipoa wrote:

Will an (or any?) Intel 386 DX33 run well at 40 MHz? If so, how do they compare to the AMD DX40?

It should work at 40MHz. As 386DX chips from AMD are direct clone of Intel there isn't and shouldn't be any difference at all.