From: Nicolas FitzGerald (cabin_at_fever0.demon.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 03 1999 - 20:48:00 EST
>
> That's actually wrong... According to Intel engineers and I have
>tested this as well... If the cache controller chipset can only cache 64
>megs, then it will not cache any ram at all if you go past the limits.
>This can all be found on Intel's site.
>
>
>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 /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
>
I absolutely agree! I remember one desktop machine I had a couple of yrs
ago, on which I switched from 64 to 96Mb of ram. It had an early TX
chipset on it. Before and after I added the extra ram, I was doing
exstensive benchmarking in WinTune96 'cos it had very good comparative
bar charts of all componnets & subsystemms performance results [I wasn't
testing the memory particularly, but overall performance under various
BUS speeds, when the absolute fastest was 75MHz]
The ovarall performance fell between 25-40%, and it took me some time to
figure it why. I left the extra mem in, as it ment a lot to me, as I
used that machine only for Photoshop, where I alocated 80% of ram to
Photoshop.
I use a 760ED, but I never bothered to find out what chipset it uses,
but I bet it's NOT a HX, as it's the only one I've ever heard associated
with any laptop!
-- Nicolas FitzGerald
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:47 EST