From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 09:46:39 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id JAA05886
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 09:46:39 -0700
Received: from aristotle.algonet.se (aristotle.algonet.se [193.12.207.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA05880
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 09:46:35 -0700
Received: from sophocles. (mal@sophocles.algonet.se [193.12.207.10]) by aristotle.algonet.se (8.6.9/hdw.1.0) with SMTP id SAA12052; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:46:05 +0200
Received: by sophocles. (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA15597; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:46:25 +0200
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:46:25 +0200
From: mal@algonet.se (Mats Lofkvist)
Message-Id: <9509051646.AA15597@sophocles.>
To: jehamby@lightside.com
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950904233216.302A-100000@localhost> (message from Jake Hamby on Mon, 4 Sep 1995 23:36:10 -0700 (PDT))
Subject: Re: AMD dx4-100 - Any good?
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

   I just bought an AMD DX4-100 two days ago to replace my old Cyrix DX2/66.
   Because the Cyrix only had a 1K cache, it was NOT as fast as the Intel,
   but the AMD has an 8k cache and so performs just as well, and costs a lot
   cheaper than an Intel 486DX4/100 ($109 vs. $190 at PC Club in Industry, 
   CA).  It is also 100% compatible with anything you can throw at it, 
   including FreeBSD.  Even the Intel diagnostic program that came with an
   old 486 Overdrive chip passed the AMD with flying colors!

Isn't the cache in the Intel DX4 16K ?
If so, "just as well" might not be entirely true.

      _
Mats Lofkvist
mal@algonet.se