-- -Jason Willgruber (roblwill_at_usaor.net) ICQ#: 1730318 <http://members.tripod.com/general_1> -----Original Message----- From: Tim Hotze <tim_at_thereviewguide.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 12:49 PM Subject: Re: OT, but info needed: RAM uprade > >That's why it's Windows 95. It takes forever to boot. Anyway, cache's the >only thing that makes the K6-2 slower than a PII at the same clock speed. >If I remove my cache entirely on my 200MHz MMX system, then it performs >considerably slower than my 486 with 136K (IE 8K on chip, 128K on the >motherboard) cache. Also the bus speed matters a lot, especially on a >pre-486 (or 486SX with 487) system if you're doing heavy math, etc. I >don't know why Intel's 'low cost' processors are always so bone headed: >486SX, which removed the one true thing that made it a 486, 8088, removing >the crucial 16-bit bus of the 8086, 386SX, which worked pretty well, but >still halfed the external bandwidth (did Intel ever make a cheap version of >a 286?), and now we've got Celeron: Until the Celron A, no cache at all... > >Tim >------------------------------------------------------* >*Ever onward, always forward. * >*Tim D. Hotze Panel Member, The Ultimate Web Host List* >*http://www.webhostlist.com worldsfate_at_geocities.com * >------------------------------------------------------* >Received on Sun Dec 27 1998 - 17:51:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:30:50 BST