From: Vincent Poy (vince_at_mail.MCESTATE.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 03 1999 - 13:31:12 EST
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Paul Khoury wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 1999 00:30:32 -0800 (PST), Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Paul Khoury wrote:
> >
> >> > Actually, everyone is incorrect about this... The 64 meg issue
> >> >has nothing to do with the OS but the chipset implementation on the
> >> >system. If it's the Triton FX/MX/TX/VX, the system can only cache 64 megs
> >> >of RAM. If you go over, none of the ram will be cache. If you use the HX
> >> >chipset, then it can cache 512 megs of RAM.
> >>
> >> So, does this mean that the RAM beyond 64MB doesn't make a difference, or what
> >> exactly does it mean? I suppose it's possible to find out which chipset the 760ED uses through
> >> software, right?
> >
> > RAM beyond 64mb does make a difference but depending on the
> >chipset, your computer can run faster or slower... The chipset can only
> >be determined if it's in documentation somewhere or looking at the chip...
> >I have the 385ED and it uses the Intel 82430MX which is the Intel Triton
> >MX chipset... A good example would be my desktop which uses the Intel
> >Triton HX chipset that can cache 512 megs of ram... It's a ASUS
> >Motherboard so the board will only cache 64 megs unless you put in an
> >additional cache chip... I had 64 megs and the machine benchmarked fast
> >but I went to 180 megs and the machine slowed down 15%, I spent $3 to put
> >the Cache chip in and then the machine was back to normal speed... So the
> >thing is that more memory will allow running more tasks but depending upon
> >the chipset, it can be slowed down if you have either the Intel Triton FX,
> >TX, MX, VX since the ram isn't cache. Pipeline burst cacheing also known
> >as SBurst caching gives a 15% boost in performance of speed. EDO RAM
> >gives about 5% but doesn't do anything if there is Pipeline cache already
> >there.
> >
> I think I sorta understand now.
>
> So, if I add more RAM, it needs that corresponding cache so it can
> cache the RAM properly?
It doesn't need the corresponding cache because the issue is the
cache controller that puts a limit on the cache. If you use one of
Intel's inferior chipsets, then your cache would not be used if you go
past the 64 meg limit regardless how much cache you have.
> Since you're a UNIX admin, what about other boxes such as SPARCs?
> They don't have this problem, do they?
SPARCs don't have this problem because those are servers... I
build and run Pentium machines under FreeBSD for my own ISP and they all
use the Intel HX chipset for this reason.
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 /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:47 EST