[rescue] Re: Re: Re: OH YEA??? [was: Re: Ultra?]

[Robert Novak]

On 4 Aug 2002, Chris Hedemark wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 16:20, Dave McGuire wrote:
> 
> >   40mhz vs. 270MHz is an important point, but let's also keep in mind
> > that this is an apples/oranges comparison.  With 1MB of cache, that
> > 40Mhz can actually do some serious work...while the 256K cache on the
> > U5's CPU is a joke.
> 
> Relevant excerpts from OpenBSD dmesg on U5 and SS10.  Just the facts,
> ma'am.

There are different processors with different cache. Your "relevant"
excerpt is from a 333MHz cpu, not a 270MHz.

I believe the 270 and 360 U5 cpus were 256KB cache. 333 was 2MB, maybe 440
too. That's why the 360MHz model was cheaper than the 333MHz model when
it came out. I don't know if the Sabre (360MHz/2MB) will work in an Ultra
5/10, but I've seen them in both AXis that crossed my path. 

So Dave's 50% inaccurate and you're 50% irrelevant. Not the best of
tradeoffs for you.

Andthere were at least two different 40MHz MBus modules, SM40 with no L2
cache and SM41 with 1MB. And then there was the regrettable SM100 of
recent Bodoman fame. And there was a 40MHz Hypersparc apparently, very
rare, with 256KB cache.

> Just wanna put that cache myth to rest.

It's no myth, maybe you're just looking for someone to dance with?

--Rob

Robert Novak, Indyramp Consulting * rnovak at indyramp.com * indyramp.com/~rnovak
	"I don't want to doubt you, Know everything about you
      I don't want to sit Across the table from you Wishing I could run."