Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:32:24 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> Cc: mika ruohotie <bsdhack@shadows.aeon.net>, macgyver@db-net.com (Wilson MacGyver), hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: p166 vs. p166mmx Message-ID: <199704022332.QAA17367@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199704022109.WAA14871@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> References: <199704021219.PAA03426@shadows.aeon.net> <199704022109.WAA14871@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmm, I don't know. I heard reports that a PP150 w/ 512k cache was > almost as good as a PP200 2/ 256k. I'd have a *really* hard time believing it, especially given Intel's numbers on their WWW site. I've been going with the PP200-256K chip vs. the 512K chip due to the $800 difference in chip costs and the 4-5% difference in performance seen by the benchmarks on Intels site. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704022332.QAA17367>