From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Mar 4 18:47:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA02485 for freebsd-hardware-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:47:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from george.lbl.gov (george-2.lbl.gov [131.243.2.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA02407 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:47:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jin@george.lbl.gov) Received: (from jin@localhost) by george.lbl.gov (8.8.8/LBL-ITG) id SAA07277; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:46:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:46:47 -0800 (PST) From: Jin Guojun (ITG staff) Message-Id: <199803050246.SAA07277@george.lbl.gov> To: grog@lemis.com, jonny@coppe.ufrj.br, mike@smith.net.au Subject: Re: TX Chipset and more than 64M Ram Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Greg (grog@lemis.com) wrote: : :>> What kind of problem could I expect from FreeBSD if I run a TX :>> chipset motherboard with 128M RAM ? :> :> Your performance will suck. : :Your performance will drop instead of increasing. This is controversial with what you strongly agree at below. :>> This chipset can only cache :>> 64M. Anything other than performance ? Is it possible to force :>> FreeBSD to use the low 64M preferentially ? :> :> Take the top 64M out. :> :> Seriously, it's going to cost you less to replace the board with one :> wearing an HX chipset than the time that the TX board will waste you. : :The German magazine c't, which I personally greatly respect, did a :test of a number of motherboards which can cache more than 64 MB in :their issue 4/98. The chipsets tested were: : ??????????????????????? : Intel 430TX ??????? : Ali Aladdin IV+ : VIA Apollo VP2 : SiS 5582 : Intel 430HX : VIA Apollo VPX : :The order is the order of speed in c't's BAPCo benchmark (which, :unfortunately, is stronly Microsoft-oriented) with 64 MB main memory :(430TX is the fastest, with a rating of 225, compared to 221 for teh :Aladdin and the VP2). With increasing memory, the TX performance :drops, while the performance of the other chip sets increases. At 72 :MB, the TX drops below Aladdin and VP2, at 96 MB (!) below the HX, and :by 128 MB, it's down to 204, compared to 227 for the Aladdin (which by :this time has left the VP2 behind). : :All reports say that the cache limit is particularly hard on Microsoft :due to its brain-damaged memory allocation; I can't verify this, but :I'm prepared to believe it. That would mean that the drop under :FreeBSD would be less. I'm currently running a TX board with 96 MB, :and while I'm trying to replace it, I can't say that "my performance :sucks". : To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message