Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:25:07 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: ITG staff <jin@george.lbl.gov>, jonny@coppe.ufrj.br, mike@smith.net.au Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TX Chipset and more than 64M Ram Message-ID: <19980305132507.23158@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199803050246.SAA07277@george.lbl.gov>; from ITG staff on Wed, Mar 04, 1998 at 06:46:47PM -0800 References: <199803050246.SAA07277@george.lbl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 March 1998 at 18:46:47 -0800, ITG staff wrote: > 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. Sorry, I don't understand that. Do you mean contradictory? I still don't see any contradiction. >>>> 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 ??????? Does "???????" mean "why test the TX if it's a test of motherboards which can cache more than 64 MB?"? If so, it's for comparison's sake. The test itself didn't include any TX motherboards. Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980305132507.23158>