🚀 go-pugleaf

With the various discussion about the PC Magazine reviews, I looked a
bit more closely at the company/product profiles. Specifically, I was
looking for differences between the Tri-Star and Gateway machines which
might cause a difference in performance. [An aside here. The Gateway
2000 uses a Western Digital hard drive while Tri-Star use a Maxtor. 
This might explain part of the difference.]

When examining the cache, I noted that the Tri-Star has a 256K cache,
while the Gateway uses a 64K SRAM cache. When I started looking at
other vendors, I noticed that many had a cache of a given size while
others used an SRAM cache.

I'm a bit curious. I know that the primary requirement for a memory cache
is that its rated speed must be less than the recipricol of the clock
speed (e.g., 25MHz needs 40ns memory,). I wasn't aware that any kind of
memory except for static RAM (SRAM) was capable of this kind of performance.

So, here's the question. Is there any differene between a cache using SRAM
or one which doesn't (assuming identical size and design otherwise)?

Paul Lane