From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 11 09:42:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA29951 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA29935 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.1]) by bagpuss.visint.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA15711; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:45:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:45:31 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome To: "Louis A. Mamakos" cc: Michael Hancock , Darren Reed , Terry Lambert , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? In-Reply-To: <199704111437.KAA00409@whizzo.transsys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Michael Hancock wrote: > > > While we're talking about Intel, they claim that they're focusing more on > > > memory bandwidth these days and the Pentium II has some kind of dual bus > > > architecture that makes a significant performance difference. > > > > This is interesting, CTCM (motherboard benchmarker program) seems to tell > > me that I can get almost 56MB/s memory bandwidth. With a 66MHz bus clock > > I can't see how that this figure can improve much. Seeing as Intel seem > > unlikely to support a 75MHz or 83MHz bus speed then I'd love to know how > > they intend on doing this. > > You could build 2- or 4-way interleaved memory banks, so that you could overlap > sequential memory fetches (like cache line fills). This would be an > as an alternative to wider memory. Some systems have *very* wide paths > to memory, approaching the width of a cache line, in fact. Though I suspect > that it would be "easier" to make I/O and other bus-master access go faster > using the multiple memory bank approach. Well, it makes sense, but since when has PC hardware made sense, assuming it's a good idea and they'd go with it would we finally lose the 640K base mem business at the same time... Somehow I doubt it, I can't see Intel et. al finally getting it right for a while yet, and would it be a platform that could run Windoze? Basically what your suggesting looks good, but if Windoze 95/NT wont run on it will it really happen ? > > This technique certainly isn't new - it's at least 25 years old. So is having more than 640k memory accessible to your operating system. -- Steve Roome Technical Systems Manager, Vision Interactive Ltd. E: steve@visint.co.uk M: +44 (0) 976 241 342 T: +44 (0) 117 973 0597 F: +44 (0) 117 923 8522