Article View: demon.tech.pc
Article #69061Re: Caught by cache?
From: Bill Holt
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:00
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:00
18 lines
1234 bytes
1234 bytes
In article <61gucDAfVUcxEw5c@mwb.u-net.com>, Marcus Bainbridge <marcus@mwb.u-net.com> writes >John Naismith <John@naismith.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>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*. > >Crap. The cache controller is built into the PCIset. Write-back is a >function of the cache controller, but it doesn't take two chips to >implement it. It does, however, take two SRAM chips to make 64-bit >cache. Or QFP mouldings in this case... > I suppose there's no chance of anyone explaining in English what to look out for? QFP mouldings sound like something I'd use on Windows, but in conjunction with putty. -- Bill Holt bill@itsound.demon.co.uk
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<oa4k$FAUiWcxEw5s@itsound.demon.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1036bc,7858595a79b6a65d X-Google-Attributes: gid1036bc,public From: Bill Holt <Bill@itsound.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Caught by cache? Date: 1996/04/14 Message-ID: <oa4k$FAUiWcxEw5s@itsound.demon.co.uk> X-Deja-AN: 147745346 distribution: world x-nntp-posting-host: itsound.demon.co.uk references: <415183800wnr@draycot.demon.co.uk> organization: home mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: demon.tech.pc