From owner-freebsd-hardware Tue Oct 1 20:57:36 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA28128 for hardware-outgoing; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from po1.glue.umd.edu (po1.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.44]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA28122 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gilligan.eng.umd.edu (gilligan.eng.umd.edu [129.2.103.21]) by po1.glue.umd.edu (8.8.Gamma.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA20794; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 23:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by gilligan.eng.umd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA30776; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 23:57:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: gilligan.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 23:57:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@gilligan.eng.umd.edu To: Richard Foulk cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: H/W recommendation In-Reply-To: <199610020227.QAA22441@pegasus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Richard Foulk wrote: > } > As can be seen the best parts to be using are the 100, 133, 166 and 200, > } > with the exception that at a mulitplier of 3 the CPU starves for memory. > } > } Depends on the cache, and whether you get a Pentium or a Pentium Pro. A > } Pentium Pro with a built-in 512 KB level 2 cache usually won't starve, even > } on UNIX boxes. (To put things in perspective, a typical FreeBSD kernel, > } with unnecessary drivers removed, is about that size.) But the bargain > } basement version of the Pentium Pro, with the 256 KB cache, will drag in > } the same configuration. Unfortunately, far too many clone vendors just > } HAPPEN not to mention in their ads that they're including the cheaper CPU. > } > } I'd like to see a megabyte cache on board. > } > > This isn't quite the way cache works. A board with 512K of cache > won't hold 512K of code, even if that were necessary -- most of the > code in the kernel or any other large program seldom gets run.. > > But the cache isn't just a mirror of memory, probably half the > cache is available for code storage (depends on how it's implemented.) > > More importantly, diminishing returns sets in real quick after 256K, > (actually before.) And, on top of that, I think calling Intel's 512K cache the normal version is unreal. That chip is running (or was when last available) $600-650 each in 256K cache versions, and DOUBLE that in 512K cache versions. Under that kind of marketing plan, the cheaper one isn't 'bargain basement'. I think paying an extra $600 for an extra 256K of cache is kinda strange. > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------