From owner-freebsd-smp  Sun Apr 27 20:58:56 1997
Return-Path: <owner-smp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA18995
          for smp-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs.utah.edu (cs.utah.edu [128.110.4.21])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA18990
          for <smp@freebsd.org>; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fast.cs.utah.edu by cs.utah.edu (8.8.4/utah-2.21-cs)
	id VAA09968; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 21:58:42 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by fast.cs.utah.edu (8.6.10/utah-2.15-leaf)
	id VAA10841; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 21:58:41 -0600
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 21:58:41 -0600
From: vanmaren@fast.cs.utah.edu (Kevin Van Maren)
Message-Id: <199704280358.VAA10841@fast.cs.utah.edu>
To: black@zen.cypher.net, brownie@earthling.net
Subject: Re: Quad Pro 150 motherboard?
Cc: csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk, smp@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>
>i think a good rul eof thumb is about 256K per 64MB RAM (except for 
>servers or where bus speeds far exceed RAM speeds).  so, 4 CPUs with 256K 
>cache should be fine in non-server configs.  the 512K P6 chips are just 
>not cost effective.  last week i ordered a P6-150 for $165.  tough to 
>beat that.
>

My rule of thumb was 256k/16MB ram.  But that was before memory got 
soooo cheap.  Actually, there have been numerous benchmarks that have 
shown that 3 166/512k chips blow away 4 200/256k chips.  It was
too bad that Intel discontinued the Pro/166.

Kevin