PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Rick Poepping <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCBUILD - PC Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:24:45 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
First of all Thanks for the replies.

David Gillett wrote:

> On 26 Feb 98 at 22:58, Rick Poepping wrote:
>
> > I'm getting ready to do various upgrades to my 586-p133
>
>   This is not a very clear designation; no CPU manufacturer really
> uses "586" as a designation.  [Some motherboard manufacturers use
> this to identify motherboards designed for the Pentium (Socket 5 or
> Socket 7).
>
>   My first thought was that maybe you have a 5x86-133, which is an
> AMD version of the 486 with a 4x clock multiplier.

This is correct.  I have an AMD 5x86-p133.  Sorry for the confusion

>
>
>  > And what benefits and pitfalls are there to going beyond that
> > amount (of RAM).
>
>   A chipset limited to caching 64MB of main RAM faces a problem when
> more is installed.  One simple way out of the jam is to disable the
> L2 cache entirely....
>
>

Is it your opinion that one would be better off disabling the L2 cache
all together if you install more RAM than the chipset and L2 combination
can handle?  So I would assume thisa would mean you would get better
performance by doing so (as opposed to leaving the L2 enabled but having
more RAM than you can cache)?

Rick

ATOM RSS1 RSS2