Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:37:30 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: Dave Alderman <dave@persprog.com> Cc: hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentuim or Pentuim Pro ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970410153351.23602K-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <33494928.7078@persprog.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Dave Alderman wrote: > Stephen Roome wrote: > > > I'm probably only going to stick 64MB (SDRAM) in each of these machines > > as they really don't *need* much more (it'd be nice but expensive), and > > most boards I've seen (or any I'd consider) have >64MB of cacheable > > memory anyway. > > The VX and the TX chipsets only support caching of 64 Meg which might > explain why you have encountered this limitation. The HX chipset will > cache much more (although I can't remember how much more - 512Meg ?) and > also supports multiple processors. Of course, the motherboard has to > support caching greater than 64Meg as well. Actually I'm thinking that these machines really probably don't need much more memory. Yes, I know that more would be useful and probably sensible, but it's not really a luxury that can currently be afforded. Besides, 64MB of memory is still about the same price as a 2GB disc, which in our situation would probably be a better way of spending the money. Obviously getting a board that supports more cacheable memory is a good idea, but assuming memory prices continue to drop then by the time I want another 64MB of memory in both machines I should be able to get two new (even better) motherboards as well for the same price as I would pay for that 64MB now.. Well, that's all opinion, but it seems to make sense to me. (Which means that it's probably wrong !) Steve Roome (underfunded)home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970410153351.23602K-100000>