• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Why wasn't the 386sx CPU developed as a drop-in replacement for the 286?

Link please.

A quote without the source is worth dilly squat......

BTW this is a discussion not a court case.
 

BTW this is a discussion not a court case.
I stand by my statement your honor.......

AO you are guilty as charged ;)
 
The 80286 existed in CLCC, PLCC, PGA and QFP . Initial shipments were made as CLCC--to my knowledge the 386 never used that packaging.
Which also reminds me I should ask why the 387DX was packaged in 68-pin PGA instead of CLCC/PLCC
 
My recollection was that the '387 was a late addition. Witness the number of early 386DX boards using the 40 pin 80287 because the 387 wasn't ripe for shipping. So it makes sense that the packaging for the 387 was limited. Do any boards exist where the 386 was a PLCC with the 387 being PGA? I don't recall any offhand.
 
I bought a 386SXnow unit for work to see if I could get it to work with the intel 286 multibus. While I did not get the cache running, it worked fine right up until I tried to access I/O.

I cant quite remember the details now, but the machine hung until I pulled down the interrupt as it was not getting it properly from the I/O interface.

Had to put in in my AT instead.
 
You have a point. I have some 84 pin PLCCs, but that's still pretty far from a 132 pin count. I guess I was thinking of the 80286 varieties. Even the SX had too many pins-100.
 
Last edited:
You have a point. I have some 84 pin PLCCs, but that's still pretty far from a 132 pin count. I guess I was thinking of the 80286 varieties. Even the SX had too many pins-100.
Which is why I focused on the 387DX, which the average user is more likely to touch than the 386DX anyway.
 
Back
Top