4 ms·
I think a 486 is the minimum; it was pretty snappy on the 486DX2/66 I had.
by shrubble 2y ago
I think a 486 is the minimum; it was pretty snappy on the 486DX2/66 I had.
- mattl 2y agoYeah, but given this is a fake 386 I do wonder.
- Hackbraten 2y agoWhat do you mean by fake? TFA says it's a 386 processor [1]. It's just not a model from the 80s/90s. I wouldn't call that fake. [1]: https://www.cpushack.com/ULi.html https://www.cpushack.com/ULi.html
- jerrysievert 2y agoit appears to be a real 80386SX embedded in the SoC, which also bundles the bridges, so i would not expect the math coprocessor from the 486, nor the amount of cache (this is an SX after all). see https://www.cpushack.com/ULi.html https://www.cpushack.com/ULi.html for more information on this (not new) SoC.
- mattl 2y agoYeah, SX is going to be rough.
- cess11 2y agoWhat do you mean, "fake"? They claim it's a 40 MHz Ali M6117, 386 SX compatible.