Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:45:31 +0100 (BST)
From:      Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>
To:        "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>
Cc:        Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>, Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: 430TX ? 
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.91.970411174115.12860E-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <199704111437.KAA00409@whizzo.transsys.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:

> > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Michael Hancock wrote:
> > > While we're talking about Intel, they claim that they're focusing more on
> > > memory bandwidth these days and the Pentium II has some kind of dual bus
> > > architecture that makes a significant performance difference.
> > 
> > This is interesting, CTCM (motherboard benchmarker program) seems to tell 
> > me that I can get almost 56MB/s memory bandwidth. With a 66MHz bus clock 
> > I can't see how that this figure can improve much. Seeing as Intel seem 
> > unlikely to support a 75MHz or 83MHz bus speed then I'd love to know how 
> > they intend on doing this.
> 
> You could build 2- or 4-way interleaved memory banks, so that you could overlap
> sequential memory fetches (like cache line fills).  This would be an
> as an alternative to wider memory.  Some systems have *very* wide paths
> to memory, approaching the width of a cache line, in fact.  Though I suspect
> that it would be "easier" to make I/O and other bus-master access go faster
> using the multiple memory bank approach.

Well, it makes sense, but since when has PC hardware made sense, assuming 
it's a good idea and they'd go with it would we finally lose the 640K 
base mem business at the same time...

Somehow I doubt it, I can't see Intel et. al finally getting it right for 
a while yet, and would it be a platform that could run Windoze?

Basically what your suggesting looks good, but if Windoze 
95/NT wont run on it will it really happen ?

> 
> This technique certainly isn't new - it's at least 25 years old.

So is having more than 640k memory accessible to your operating system.

--
Steve Roome
Technical Systems Manager, Vision Interactive Ltd.
E: steve@visint.co.uk      M: +44 (0) 976 241 342
T: +44 (0) 117 973 0597    F: +44 (0) 117 923 8522




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970411174115.12860E-100000>