Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 13 Sep 1998 07:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Castor Fu <castor@geocast.net>
To:        Duncan Barclay <dmlb@ragnet.demon.co.uk>
Cc:        spork <spork@super-g.com>, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: "Cacheable memory"??
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.03.9809130703460.20788-100000@geo.geocast.net>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.980912212159.dmlb@computer.my.domain>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Duncan Barclay wrote:
> 
> The Ali chipsets, however, look much better. In general all of the buffers etc.
> on the ALi 5 are twice as big as the MVP3, this may result in better system
> performance. The ALi chipset also has part of the RAM needed for the cache on
> chip (the tag RAM). This will help cost/stability, but not necessarily speed.
> 
> Given a choice I would buy a Ali 5 chipset (Aladdin also re-spun the chipset to
> help a boot problem with FreeBSD, that's what I call support).

Has anyone done any actual performance measurements with these two chipsets?

I was rather leary of the Ali5 because ALI is an acer subsidiary and
Acer's motherboard arm, AOpen, uses the MVP-3 in their super 7 board.
I figure if ALI couldn't get a design win with their own companies, there's
something you don't want to find out.

I also had a friend with a cheap ALI board which had various nasty problems
which only cropped up as one started adding cards.

	-castor


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.03.9809130703460.20788-100000>