🚀 go-pugleaf

In article: <830540394snz@myth.demon.co.uk>  Mike <zeus@myth.demon.co.uk> writes:
> On the subject of caches, what is the received wisdom on 512K caches? The 
> last I heard they were only giving around 2% improvement over 256K, though 
> that was before 150/166MHz+ devices appeared.
It depends on a series of things.
1)	A lot of motherboards, use 8 chips+ TAG, for 256k, and only
4 chips+ TAG, for 512k. These can do 'interleaved' fetches, on 256k,
but not on 512k. Therefore 512k, doesn't give the expected gain on such
machines. Some 'high-end' server machines, implement 512k, using 16+2
chips, and give more gain.
2)	If you have more than 32mB of RAM fitted, 512k cache helps
significantly more, than it does with less memory.
3)	If you have a lot of different things using memory, in the machine,
the gain is greater. Hence the single-user machine, has less gain, than
say a Unix/NT box, running several applications.

Best Wishes

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMail roger@ttelmah.demon.co.uk                                   |
| A beard! A beard! cried Fly Nicholas. 'By God, that's a good one!'|
| (Chaucer)                                                         |