🚀 go-pugleaf

chuckf@charm.net (Chuck Frain) writes:

>In article <4d9toe$99q@brickbat.mindspring.com>, wluther@mindspring.com 
>says...
>>256K cache is the L2 SRAM cache on the motherboard...it's definitely
>>worth getting...from what I've read 256K is sufficient, although 512K
>>will give you a marginal pick-up in performance...

>Just a little note here....256k cache is worth getting up to 32 megs of 
>ram. After 32 megs go to 512k. If you go to 512k with less than 32megs 
>of RAM it will actually slow the system down. At my part itme job we 
>did some benchmarking with this and found it to be true with every MB 
>that we tried. 

Rats! Are you sure about this? Way back I saw recommendations about 512k
when using 16M+ with DX2 so I stuck to that when ordering my new Box
as I'm starting with 16M but will go higher soon. According to you estimates
I will have payed extra dough to get an extra sluggish PC, GREAT! Does
anuone know wether it's possible to disable part of the cache to reduce
its size to the optimum? Can anyone explain WHY a computer would run
slower using a larger cache? Could it be that time is taken up updating
the cache with bytes that will only be used once? Couldn't this mean that
the performance would depend greatly upon the number of threads/processes
that are running and using CPU time? In that case Win95 could possibly
suffer less than Win3.1 from too large cache, and WinNT even less, at
least when under a fair load. Just me guessing, please enlighten us
if you REALLY know about computers and OS internals, ANYONE.

Hans Lindberg, Phone: +46-31-183151 Mobile: +46-70-7813996
EMail: d7hansl@dtek.chalmers.se

    _/    _/   _/_/_/   _/
   _/    _/  _/        _/ 
  _/_/_/_/  _/  _/_/  _/    . . I n f o T e c h . .
 _/    _/  _/    _/  _/	
_/    _/    _/_/_/  _/_/_/_/