Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (22134)	12/18/1997 1:29:00 AM
From: FJB	Respond to of 33344

Joe, the GXm's on-chip memory controller will add SDRAM support mdronline.com On Page 3 of 5 Bob

To: Joe NYC who wrote (22134)	12/18/1997 9:00:00 PM
From: Craig Freeman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

Jozef, IMHO Intel will not actually sell a cacheless PII. My preliminary tests today with a PII/266 overclocked to 300MHz (75MHz bus) side-by-side against a CYRX P200L+ (non-MMX) show two things: 1) With the 512K internal cache engaged, the PII/300 is more than twice as fast at real-world 'processing' tasks and 50% faster under Win95. It is several times faster at cached disk access and memory transfers. Overall, the PII is noticeably faster running everything from DOS apps (2x+) to Office 97 (1.5x). 2) With the internal cache disabled it is a complete disaster. "RAM Copy Avg" in Wintune 97 fell from 438MB/s to 23MB/s! Cached disk I/O fell by a factor of 6:1. With 64K of Megatrends SDRAM on a 440LX MB, it 'felt' like sludge. Conclusion: The PII absolutely requires the 512K internal cache to obtain any reasonable level of performance. The most Intel will do will be to decrease the cache size but not eliminate it. Craig