Article View: comp.sys.sun.hardware
Article #3223Re: 512Kb or 1Mb cache??
From: Karl von Jena
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:00
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:00
25 lines
1637 bytes
1637 bytes
In article <33015CB9.4EEC@qfgis2.fh.dpi.qld.gov.au> Michael Kraus, mkraus@qfgis2.fh.dpi.qld.gov.au writes: >The 167 Mhz Ultra Sparc chips with 512 Kb cache for the Ultra 2s >cost $AUS 8,200 and ... > >The 167 Mhz Ultra Sparc chips with 1024 Kb cache for the Ultra 3000s >cost $AUS 19,700! > >Thats a difference of $AUS 11,500, for 512Kb cache. > Cache RAM is very expensive because it needs to be high speed. Remember that the cache runs at the same clock speed as the CPU, while regular RAM runs at 40-60 Mhz. So that's part of the difference. But it doesn't explain all of it. I suspect that its a matter of positioning. If you have an Ultra 2, you can afford $8K for a processor, while if you're using a 3000 your pockets are a lot deeper. It's also a matter of percentages. A processor can't cost more than 25% of the cost of the computer, so you price high where you can, and low where you have to. Karl
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<5dskiv$sgo@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<33015CB9.4EEC@qfgis2.fh.dpi.qld.gov.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f4671,49a802f6f2c4ad6b X-Google-Attributes: gidf4671,public X-Google-Thread: 10d053,49a802f6f2c4ad6b X-Google-Attributes: gid10d053,public From: Karl von Jena <kvj@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: 512Kb or 1Mb cache?? Date: 1997/02/12 Message-ID: <5dskiv$sgo@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> X-Deja-AN: 218260222 Distribution: world References: <33015CB9.4EEC@qfgis2.fh.dpi.qld.gov.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-XXMessage-ID: <AF273F8E3902F26E@pat-nj3-14.ix.netcom.com> Organization: The Record X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Feb 12 6:37:19 AM PST 1997 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware,aus.computers.sun