Content deleted Content added
Line 26:
The board was comparable to [[Intel Inboard 386|Intel's Inboard 386]], which came out at the same time. Both boards plugged into one of the AT's 16-bit ISA expansion slots. While Intel offered a version of the Inboard that could work on XTs, the 386 Turbo could only be used by ATs.{{sfn|Crabb|1987|p=213}} The Turbo's 1 MB of memory was strictly used for cache, while the Inboard could accept up to 4 MB of memory chips to be used as conventional RAM, on top of having 64 KB of cache memory itself.{{sfn|Crabb|1987|pp=214–215}}
==
AC&P's peripherals received mixed reviews throughout the company's short life. Stephen Satchell of ''[[InfoWorld]]'' found that the Turbo 386 failed to double the performance of ATs with 6 MHz 286 processors, as claimed by the company, instead only increasing performance by 83 percent. He felt that this was the product's biggest downfall, because 6 MHz ATs had the slowest clock speeds of the AT class, and thus users with these computers would have been the perfect market for the Turbo. Satchell contrasted the Turbo with Intel's Inboard, which increased performance of 6 MHz ATs by 250 percent,{{sfn|Satchell|1987b|p=56}} surmounting even the Turbo's boost on 8 MHz machines.{{sfn|Satchell|1987b|p=57}} Howard Marks of ''[[PC Magazine]]'' found the increased performance adequate on his AT but panned the lack of memory beyond the 1 MB used for cache; access to memory on the computer's [[motherboard]] above 1 MB would be bottlenecked by the AT's 16-bit data bus, negating the processing speed of the 386.{{sfn|Marks|1987|p=245}} Satchell praised the company's Abovefunction [[multifunction board]] as a bargain, on the other hand.{{sfn|Satchell|1987a|p=60}}
| |||