From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Sep 5 17:14:10 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id RAA12357 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:14:10 -0700 Received: from covina.lightside.com (covina.lightside.com [198.81.209.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA12351 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:14:08 -0700 Received: by covina.lightside.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0sq87u-0009aeC; Tue, 5 Sep 95 17:14 PDT Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby To: Mats Lofkvist cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: AMD dx4-100 - Any good? In-Reply-To: <9509051646.AA15597@sophocles.> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Mats Lofkvist wrote: > I just bought an AMD DX4-100 two days ago to replace my old Cyrix DX2/66. > Because the Cyrix only had a 1K cache, it was NOT as fast as the Intel, > but the AMD has an 8k cache and so performs just as well, and costs a lot > cheaper than an Intel 486DX4/100 ($109 vs. $190 at PC Club in Industry, > CA). It is also 100% compatible with anything you can throw at it, > including FreeBSD. Even the Intel diagnostic program that came with an > old 486 Overdrive chip passed the AMD with flying colors! > > Isn't the cache in the Intel DX4 16K ? > If so, "just as well" might not be entirely true. > Okay, I forgot to mention that point. :) But for all practical purposes, the difference between 8k and 16k cache is a lot smaller than the difference between the 1k cache on the Cyrix and an 8k cache, especially if you also have a 256k external cache, as most decent 486 motherboards do. ---Jake jehamby@lightside.com