From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 11 03:03:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA08064 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 03:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shadows.aeon.net (bsdhack@shadows.aeon.net [194.100.41.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA08051 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 03:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bsdhack@localhost) by shadows.aeon.net (8.8.5/8.8.3) id NAA28678; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:01:57 +0300 (EET DST) From: mika ruohotie Message-Id: <199704111001.NAA28678@shadows.aeon.net> Subject: Re: 430TX ? In-Reply-To: <199704102254.PAA05935@freefall.freebsd.org> from Darren Reed at "Apr 11, 97 08:48:44 am" To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:01:56 +0300 (EET DST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Is the 430TX chipset recognised/supported yet ? > > Is this a PCI chipset? > Yes, the "latest" from Intel (advertised as faster than HX and VX). right. a chipset without EEC support, without ability to cache above 64 megs ram... need i say more? ok, so it does have sgram support, so what? see if i care. this is one of those times when i'm more than just dissapointed into intel's developers... makes me wonder how can they not include something they already have invented into it. what the people wouldve needed would've been chipset with support for over 512 megs cacheable ram, ofcourse using sgram. (and ofcourse with like 1024/2048k cache option) or atleast a product that's not WORSE then their earlier products. seriously people, HX boards are the ones to get. mickey