From owner-freebsd-hardware  Fri May 23 14:22:41 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA17315
          for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 23 May 1997 14:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns.tar.com (ns.tar.com [204.95.187.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17309
          for <hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 23 May 1997 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppro.tar.com (ppro.tar.com [204.95.187.9])
	by ns.tar.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA04993;
	Fri, 23 May 1997 16:22:18 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199705232122.QAA04993@ns.tar.com>
From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com>
To: "Jin Guojun[ITG]" <jin@george.lbl.gov>
Cc: "hardware@FreeBSD.ORG" <hardware@FreeBSD.ORG>
Date: Fri, 23 May 97 16:22:18 -0500
Reply-To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com>
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: PMMail 1.91 For OS/2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Intel Pentium II released
Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 23 May 1997 12:01:49 -0700, Jin Guojun[ITG] wrote:

>Probably, you meant 430HX, which is one level before TX chip. It is smimilar
>to 430TX, except currency and a bit more of other features. It supposes to
>support K6. For me, I need some high performance servers, so for the same
>price, I have to get the better one.

One disadvantage to the TX chip is that it only does L2 caching of the
first 64MB of RAM.  If you have servers with large RAM levels (above 64MB)
you might not get the performance you expect.  The 430HX can cache up to
512MB.