Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:14:11 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Johan Larsson <gozer@ludd.luth.se>, Rob Nelson <rob@mag-net.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 3com 3c509 card Message-ID: <199712160244.NAA00629@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:06:53 %2B1030." <19971216130653.14137@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 12:57:22PM +1030, Mike Smith wrote: > >> > >> So my suggestion is that you _don't_ ship your computers with 3com cards, > >> at least not the 509. > > > > I'd have to ask why anyone would use a 3c509 when an NE2000 clone is > > cheaper, faster and better supported. > > I'd have to, too. But in my experience, the 3c509 is a whole lot > faster than the NE2000 clones I've used. Of course, nowadays with > fast processors, you don't see much difference, but it's a different > story with 486/33's Nope. They're both PIO cards, and the 'ed' driver spits all over the 'ep' driver. Any inversions you may have seen would have been environmental relating to the different behaviour of the various chips relating to bus traffic. Yes, I've used both. Yes, I've seen > 1000K/sec out of an 'ed' card on a 486/50. With modern processors, yes, the differences are less evident, but I'll still take an NE2000 over a 509 anyday. Especially when a single-chip card based on something like the RTL2019 costs less than AUD$40, and "just works". mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712160244.NAA00629>