OT, but info needed: RAM uprade

From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
Date: Sun Dec 27 17:12:45 1998

<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 o
<a 286?), and now we've got Celeron: Until the Celron A, no cache at all...

This show a fundemental lack of knowledge about Intel CPUs and their
busses.

8088 actually runs for the same clock about 20% slower than the 8086
but using significantly fewer glue chips.

The 386sx is a lower pin count 386 that uses a 16 bit bus insted of the
32bit again for lower cost and lower power. Bus bandwith was not half
as it is faster than that.

Celeron, PII with big internal cache. I just powered up a celeron 333mhz
with 128k internal cache and it's remarkably fast(and cheap).

286 never saw a 288 version.

ISA and EISA bus machines are slow as the BUS speeds are limited to ~8mhz.
This is where many older machines hit the speed wall. PCI and other
extended busses are faster (to the limits of the cpu level bus).

Allison
Received on Sun Dec 27 1998 - 17:12:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:30:50 BST