From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Apr 9 10:55:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA04621 for hardware-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (Ilsa.StevesCafe.com [205.168.119.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04614 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA08240 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:55:25 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199704091755.LAA08240@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> X-Authentication-Warning: Ilsa.StevesCafe.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 From: Steve Passe To: hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentuim or Pentuim Pro ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Apr 1997 10:35:09 CDT." <199704091535.KAA01745@compound.east.sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 11:55:25 -0600 Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, > I beg to differ. It is the only set supporting SDRAM! It seems one's > choice is between a fast small memory system and a slow large memory > one. An unpleasant tradeoff, to be sure, but I would expect anyone > who intends not to add more than 64MB RAM to the current generation > motherboard to prefer the SDRAM support. the numbers I've seen for SDRAM suggest there isn't much gained in REAL WORLD situations. Can't remember the specifics but do remember thinking at the time that I apparently wasn't missing anything.. just my 2cents worth... -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD