From owner-freebsd-hardware  Thu Apr 10 07:33:21 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA08574
          for hardware-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:33:21 -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 HAA08568
          for <hardware@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:33:18 -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 PAA27088; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:37:31 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:37:30 +0100 (BST)
From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>
To: Dave Alderman <dave@persprog.com>
cc: hardware@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Pentuim or Pentuim Pro ?
In-Reply-To: <33494928.7078@persprog.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970410153351.23602K-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Dave Alderman wrote:

> Stephen Roome wrote:
> 
> > I'm probably only going to stick 64MB (SDRAM) in each of these machines
> > as they really don't *need* much more (it'd be nice but expensive), and
> > most boards I've seen (or any I'd consider) have >64MB of cacheable
> > memory anyway.
> 
> The VX and the TX chipsets only support caching of 64 Meg which might
> explain why you have encountered this limitation.  The HX chipset will
> cache much more (although I can't remember how much more - 512Meg ?) and
> also supports multiple processors.  Of course, the motherboard has to
> support caching greater than 64Meg as well.

Actually I'm thinking that these machines really probably don't need much 
more memory.
Yes, I know that more would be useful and probably sensible, but it's not 
really a luxury that can currently be afforded.

Besides, 64MB of memory is still about the same price as a 2GB disc, 
which in our situation would probably be a better way of spending the 
money.

Obviously getting a board that supports more cacheable memory is a good 
idea, but assuming memory prices continue to drop then by the time I want 
another 64MB of memory in both machines I should be able to get two new 
(even better) motherboards as well for the same price as I would pay for 
that 64MB now.. Well, that's all opinion, but it seems to make sense to 
me. (Which means that it's probably wrong !)

Steve Roome (underfunded)