Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:26:31 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Michael Searle <searle@longacre.demon.co.uk> Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX Message-ID: <199704112326.QAA06467@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:30:54 -0000." <m7944BAA9@longacre.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From The Desk Of Michael Searle : > owner-hackers-digest@freefall.freebsd.org wrote: > > > Hi; funny u should mention this, we were just talking about this in my > > RTOS class today.... > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Michael Hancock wrote: > > >>>>> Is the 430TX chipset recognised/supported yet ? > > >>>> Is this a PCI chipset? > > >>> Yes, the "latest" from Intel (advertised as faster than HX and VX). > > >> While we're talking about Intel, they claim that they're focusing more > >> on memory bandwidth these days and the Pentium II has some kind of dual > >> bus architecture that makes a significant performance difference. > > > my instructor claims they separated the cache into instruction cache and > > data-cache.....a previously 'discredited' architecture known to the > > ancients as 'harvard architecture ( howard aiken )' as opposed to the > > traditional 'von neumann' or 'princeton' architecture.... is cache space > > relatively cheap these days? > > I thought the Pentium Pro did that as well though. > Yeap, which is why I mentioned that companies are looking into faster memories besides the obvious ways of increasing bandwith --- wider memory, memory interleaving, etc... Cheers, Amancio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704112326.QAA06467>