From owner-freebsd-hardware Sat Sep 12 08:51:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13008 for freebsd-hardware-outgoing; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:51:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA13002 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 08:51:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09046; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:49:59 -0400 (EDT) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Steve Friedrich cc: Manar Hussain , "freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: "Cacheable memory"?? In-Reply-To: <199809120218.WAA27389@laker.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thanks very much for your replies, this is making the decision much easier. I have another answer in private email that I will post if I get the author's permission. Charles Charles Sprickman spork@super-g.com ---- On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Steve Friedrich wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 19:58:08 -0400 (EDT), spork wrote: > > >Does anyone know what determines how much RAM is cacheable? I've seen > >different amounts with the same size cache. Is it a chipset issue? We > >have a few machines that would really like about 512M of RAM, is it a > >waste if it's not cacheable? > > Yes, it is a chipset issue, as in, which Triton chipset or ALI, > Alladin, etc. You can read about these chipsets at > www.tomshardware.com and it appears that the new BX based motherboards > for PIIs don't have these considerations. Also, it's not a waste if > it's not cacheable at the L2 level. I've seen the performance hit > expressed as anywhere between 2% and 15% for a cache miss at the L2 > level. You'll still be getting many cache hits at the L1 level. > > Up until Intel released the latest Celeron WITH cache, I would have > easily recommended the K6 over any Intel chip. But the 300a Celeron is > extremely overclockable and appears to be quite stable when > overclocked, and of course, it's much cheaper than the rest of the PII > line. I'd avoid the original Celeron like the plague (the version with > NO cache). > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message