Depends on the year. Checking with a 1991 issue of PC Magazine, the 20 MHz 386 was $50 more expensive than the 386SX-20 and the 386DX motherboards were about another $50 more than a 386SX motherboard. The DX motherboards generally had twice as many SIMMs. One could load up on a faster 386 and cache and install extra memory and make the 386 very expensive but a barebones 386DX system cost 10% more than the 386SX system. The SX would be 10% slower than the DX at the same clock speed. Performance minded went DX; budget minded went 286; those with lavish tastes went 486.
Early in 1992, the prices of the 386SX fell to match the similarly clocked 286 and the 386SX finally offered respectable performance for the price.
Were people still purchasing 80286 systems in any quantity in 1992?
Like many things the 286 was at its best, most numerous and cheapest near the very end 1991/1992.According to PC/Computing magazine, 286 and 386 sales were tied at 40% each in August 1991. By February 1992, 386 had around 55% of the market while the 286 was down to about 15%. By August 1992, it was 60% 386, 20% 486, and 5% 286.
Link please.This is a quote:
By 1990 286s were “commodity” CPUs, with an average sale price of $16; 386s were still expensive,
with an average sale price of $121 in 1990 and $104 in 1991. (486s even more so: $600 in 1990, $384 in 1991.)
With respect the the Zenith systems a 386 with the 386sx daughter board wear sold as separate systems. With the fact they could run MS Windows 3.x in enhance mode. The fact is Standard mode is actually faster than Enhanced mode........Philips/Magnavox did a similar daughterboard design on some of their desktops-- the manual I had showed it as supporting a 12.5MHz 286 or a 16MHz 386SX. This always seemed like a dramatic level of overengineering for a low-end machine. I don't think the daughterboards were really a sold item, so I guess the primary appeal was that the "rest" of the motherboard could be made in higher economies of scale, and then they didn't have as much risk if they mis-estimated how the demand for new machines broke.
I like how you leave out 1992 when “486’s” went down to $82 to kill 286/386 demand and leave out the $1000 spread that existed high to low clocks.This is a quote:
(486s even more so: $600 in 1990, $384 in 1991.)
The above is why 286 chips moving away from pga already didn’t make sense when they did. It was only cost effective a year and did damage to manufacturing volumes .Link please.
A quote without the source is worth dilly squat......
But they did, sort of. When the fast 286s arrived, Intel converted the 387SX into the 287XL using a 40 pin DIP. Intel might not want to sell a fast 286 but they weren't willing to concede the coprocessor market. The chip had to be in a DIP form since all the 287 motherboard sockets at the time were DIP. Sometime later, the 287XLT was introduced placing the chip in a PLCC mounting. I had a 286 in PLCC packaging but I have never seen a motherboard with the 287 socket in PLCC. The packaging for PLCC was about the half the price of the packaging for DIP. Unfortunately, PLCC can only support so many pins around the circumference.I like how you leave out 1992 when “486’s” went down to $82 to kill 286/386 demand and leave out the $1000 spread that existed high to low clocks.
The above is why 286 chips moving away from pga already didn’t make sense when they did. It was only cost effective a year and did damage to manufacturing volumes .
Any cost advantage at an system integration level was lost by segmentation of the market reducing volumes of each chip package, it also meant you couldn’t deliver chips almost POS to minimize costs. (PGA is much easier to install a chip before sale without breakage)
The 387sx was always curious as to why it even existed as a separate and unreliable insta break package.
Either it and the 287 should have shared this package/ pinout if it was so much better or it should not have existed
The 386 support both 287 and 387 coprocessors; the later 287XL are just 387-cores in 287-compatible packaging.I had a 286 in PLCC packaging but I have never seen a motherboard with the 287 socket in PLCC. The packaging for PLCC was about the half the price of the packaging for DIP. Unfortunately, PLCC can only support so many pins around the circumference.