Re: 60ns ram

Article View: demon.tech.amiga

Article #7059

#7059

From: Terrance Richard Boyes
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:00

15 lines
1254 bytes

Keith Blakemore-Noble (keith@pfloyd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> 
> HOWEVER, just plugging in 60ns RAM instead of 70ns RAM will make absolutely
> NO difference whatsoever, because the CPU is still accessing the memory at
> the same speed as before.

Well that depends where the ram access bottleneck is...
> 
> Hence, I would imagine, Jon's correct reply of "very little".

But at the most of course the increase could be 14%

-- 
~ Warning Random Fortune Sig follows ~
Bureaucrats cut red tape -- lengthwise.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <9511290058.AA017r2@pierrot.demon.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References:

<awilde.02mk@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <9511251054.AA003qd@dookie.demon.co.uk> <awilde.02n2@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <awilde.02n2@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <awilde.02n2@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <9511282145.AA001xl@pfloyd.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1160fd,bc2d6d8b1469cd14
X-Google-Attributes: gid1160fd,public
From: Terrance Richard Boyes <tez@pierrot.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 60ns ram
Date: 1995/11/29
Message-ID: <9511290058.AA017r2@pierrot.demon.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 120411526
x-nntp-posting-host: pierrot.demon.co.uk
references: <awilde.02mk@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <9511251054.AA003qd@dookie.demon.co.uk> <awilde.02n2@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <awilde.02n2@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <awilde.02n2@cizeta.demon.co.uk> <9511282145.AA001xl@pfloyd.demon.co.uk>
x-smtp-posting-host: post.demon.co.uk [Wed, 29 Nov 95 20:06:38 GMT]
x-namlserv: $VER: v0.9b <tez@pierrot.demon.co.uk>
organization: ECL.net
newsgroups: demon.tech.amiga

Reply to Parent Message