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 ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970410153351.23602K-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <33494928.7078@persprog.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970410153351.23602K-100000>