From owner-freebsd-hardware  Tue Feb  4 11:47:36 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hardware>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA07831
          for hardware-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.com (pegasus.com [140.174.243.13])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA07812
          for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pegasus.com (8.6.8/PEGASUS-2.2)
	id JAA06691; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:47:09 -1000
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:47:09 -1000
From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Message-Id: <199702041947.JAA06691@pegasus.com>
In-Reply-To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
       "Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ?" (Feb  4,  4:05am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 64 MB ECC or 128 MB non ECC ?
Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

}  * From: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert)
} 
}  * One thing to consider is that you'll suffer a 10-15% speed penalty with ECC
}  * RAM. (number from some -hardware mails in the past).
} 
} To clarify: 10-15% penalty on maximum memory bandwidth.  (E.g., 70MB/s
} vs. 64MB/s on TritonII with 66MHz bus and P5-133.)
} 
} This is NOT the same as application speed penalty, which obviously
} varies depending on how memory-intensive it is.
} 

That's kinda what I thought.  So closer to 1%.


Richard