From: Vincent Poy (vince_at_mail.MCESTATE.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 03 1999 - 13:25:13 EST
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Warren Tan Wing Wah wrote:
Two identical systems is still different than a single system. I
have done the test on my Desktop before. My motherboard is a ASUS
XP55T2P4 which has the Intel Triton HX chipset but even though the board
can cache 512 megs of ram, the system will only cache 64 megs of RAM
unless a optional TAG SRAM Chip is added and the jumper is moved. It has
512k of Pipeline Burst Cache Onboard. PBC Cache gives a 15% increase in
speed using Synchronous SRAM. EDO does the same thing but has no effect
if you already have PBC. Anyways, I had 64 megs originally and the system
ran really fast then upgraded to 180 megs using 72 pin SIMMS and the
system slowed down even in the Norton Utilities System Info Benchmark by
10% when compared to the 64 megs of RAM. So I paid $US3.00 and bought the
optional chip and then the system was back to the normal fast speed and I
am running Win95/98 so it does cache the memory.
Cheers,
Vince - vince_at_MCESTATE.COM - vince_at_GAIANET.NET ________ __ ____
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ]
GaiaNet Corporation - M & C Estate / / / / | / | __] ]
Beverly Hills, California USA 90210 / / / / / |/ / | __] ]
HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
> Weird :) Perhaps you did something else as well to your system (eg. cleared
> up Window's files, etc) when you upgraded? Are you running 95/98 or NT?
>
> I've benchmarked two identical systems, down to running the exact same hard
> disk drive, except for the difference in RAM, and I got identical results in
> 98. Perhaps the benchmarking software (ZD's Winbench suite, Quake 2's
> monster timedemo, among others) weren't strict enough in testing, but I sure
> couldn't tell the difference between either system when running software.
>
> Less crashes... I've got an overclocked 450MHz Celery here running 24/7 and
> it has never crashed with 64 megs. :)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Bay [mailto:raybay_at_cia-g.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 12:09 AM
> > To: Zilim; thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu
> > Subject: Re: Additional RAM on TP770ED
> >
> >
> > Absolutely untrue based on my experience... of all the changes I have made
> > to increase performance on my Thinkpad 770, the increase in memory was the
> > most significant... 64 is just not enough anymore... If you use your
> > thinkpad for multiple software packages or for a lot of internet and
> > desktop combined, you will see the difference...
> >
> > But where you will see the big improvement: Less crashes, better
> > performance when doing audio or video, and faster performance when doing
> > graphics.
> >
> > If you just use it for simple tasks like email, searches,
> > spreadsheets, and
> > word processing, you won't see a lot of difference... but still less
> > crashes.
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:47 EST