Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:46:26 -0700 (PDT) From: John Utz <spaz@u.washington.edu> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 430TX ? Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970411094154.31682B-100000@becker2.u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970411165742.6102A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi; funny u should mention this, we were just talking about this in my RTOS class today.... On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Michael Hancock wrote: > > > > > > > Is the 430TX chipset recognised/supported yet ? > > > > > > Is this a PCI chipset? > > > > Yes, the "latest" from Intel (advertised as faster than HX and VX). > > 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. my instructor claims they separated the cache into instruction cache and data-cache.....a previously 'discredited' architecture known to the ancients as 'harvard architecture ( howard aiken )' as opposed to the traditional 'von neumann' or 'princeton' architecture.... is cache space relatively cheap these days? john ******************************************************************************* John Utz spaz@u.washington.edu idiocy is the impulse function in the convolution of life
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.970411094154.31682B-100000>