Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:35:05 -1000 (HST) From: "David Langford" <langfod@dihelix.com> To: ejs@bfd.com (Eric J. Schwertfeger) Cc: langfod@dihelix.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, steve@visint.co.uk, louie@TransSys.COM, michaelh@cet.co.jp, avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? Message-ID: <199704120035.OAA01374@caliban.dihelix.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970411152235.27533A-100000@harlie.bfd.com> from "Eric J. Schwertfeger" at "Apr 11, 97 03:24:22 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric J. Schwertfeger > > >> (That and why mohterboard makers dont put caches on Pentium Pro motherboards >> to interface the slow main memory and the faster on chip cache.) > >Can't imagine that a L3 cache would be much use unless it's SEVERAL Meg >in size. Since the PPro has at least a 256K L2 cache, the L3 cache would >hurt unless it's quite a bit larger than this. Right. If you look at the Mips, Alpha, PowerPC, Sparc, etc.. They all have 1-2Meg caches on the higher end systems. Granted there are some major differences in architecture differences but those differences are beginning to get fewer these days as the RISC chips get more CISC and the CISC chips get more RISC and harvard architecure is being used more...... Anyway :) Main point is that I think even motherboard makers could be more helpful in improving memory usage. I would pay a premium for a high bandwidth motherboard, but I dont see a point in spending $750 for motherboards that perform just like the $200 boards... err [RANT off] :) -David Langford langfod@dihelix.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704120035.OAA01374>