*BSD News Article 74696


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!lynx.aba.net.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!serv.hinet.net!nctuccca.edu.tw!howland.reston.ans.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.mathworks.com!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: robt2@ix.netcom.com(Rob(t.) Brannan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Does cache memory size 512K over 256K matter?
Date: 25 Jul 1996 21:22:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4t8oi4$2rc@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.A32.3.93.960716180913.29739A-100000@r2d3.sbac.edu> <31F17B64.EDF@www.play-hookey.com> <4t2pe4$9o@anorak.coverform.lan> <4t4klb$q7m@baygull.rtd.com> <31F78D26.167EB0E7@colorado.cirrus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lvx-nv4-27.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jul 25  2:22:12 PM PDT 1996
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:24403 comp.os.linux.hardware:45644

In <31F78D26.167EB0E7@colorado.cirrus.com> Clint Wolff
<clint_w@colorado.cirrus.com> writes: 
>
>Don Yuniskis wrote:
>
><useful stuff about cache sizes cut so I can interject a snide remark>
>
>; 
>; Of course, if money is no object (email and I'll send you the
address
>; of my PO Box!  :>), more is "always" better...
>
>My boss used to tell me:
>
>	If some is good, and more is better, then too much is just
enough.
>
>clint
>
>
>-- 
>Underscores added to return address to defeat advertising engines.
>
>clintw@colorado.cirrus.com
>
>/* The gene pool could use a little chlorine. */
>668: The Neighbor of the Beast  -- Emo Phillips

Yes it does. Go to the intel homepage and look at the processor specs.

It seems that up to a p5 133 , 256k works good ,
then when they have a p5 150 with 512k then the speed increase
for the 150 is very small over the 133, the extra cache was needed to
get the little bump in extra speed. Which implies that the motherboard
has trouble keeping up with the chip. Or that the Pentium at that speed
is outgrowing the speed of the motherboard.

Anyhow anything after a p150 requires 512k of cache  to get the
necessary jump in system speed over the lower speed processor.
However, for all practical purposes the p133 and p150 will have the
same performance.

For instance , from the Intel graph it is a no-brainer to infer
that a p150 with 256k cache would probably be slower than a p133,
probably due to the p133 system board running at 66mhz and the
p150's at 60mhz.

It seems that even a 200mhz Pentium is pushing the motherboard a little
too much, and that getting anything over a p166 is probably and
currently spending too much money.

It you have plans to get a 200mhz Pentium , it may be in your interest
to get a barnyard door cheap Pentium Pro instead.