Re: Caught by cache?

Article View: demon.tech.pc

Article #69060

#69060

From: John Naismith
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:00

23 lines
1544 bytes

In article: <708079308wnr@xabcs.demon.co.uk>  J A F Bradbury 
<Julian@xabcs.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
> Kevin Poole <poole@draycot.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Both offered identical boards - UMC chipset, 1 VLB slot, a few PCI, 
> > etc, 4X30 pin, 2x72 pin SIMM sockets, and, in the front right 
> > corner, two square chips, soldered in (tiny pins all round the 
> > edge), each marked "Write Back" and a load of numbers, none of which 
> > looked like a size or speed indicator.
> 
> They are fake cache. I've seen 3 pentium m/bs with them, but
> they also came with a COAST socket & 7ns PB module which is ok ;)
> 
> As long as there is a real-cache option, then it's ok.

No they're not. Whoever told you that this was the cache didn't know what they 
were talking about. They are the cache *controllers*.


-- 
---------------------------
john@naismith.demon.co.uk
---------------------------

Technical Details

Message-ID: <549011010wnr@naismith.demon.co.uk>

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

References: <415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> <708079308wnr@xabcs.demon.co.uk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1036bc,7858595a79b6a65d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1036bc,public
From: John Naismith <John@naismith.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Caught by cache?
Date: 1996/04/14
Message-ID: <549011010wnr@naismith.demon.co.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 147586583
x-nntp-posting-host: naismith.demon.co.uk
references: <415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> <708079308wnr@xabcs.demon.co.uk>
x-broken-date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:28:54 GMT0BST1
x-mail2news-path: disperse.demon.co.uk!post.demon.co.uk!naismith.demon.co.uk
organization: None
reply-to: John@naismith.demon.co.uk
newsgroups: demon.tech.pc

Reply to Parent Message