home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: zetnet.co.uk!demon!johnp.cadlink.co.uk
- From: johnp@cadlink.co.uk (John Porter)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: 030 with no Fast RAM slower than a 020?
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 13:47:58 GMT
- Organization: CADlink
- Message-ID: <822577678.8412@johnp.cadlink.co.uk>
- References: <9601201902.AA000me@rekab.demon.co.uk> <744.6594T926T2709@canit.se> <9601220214.AA000pf@girvan.demon.co.uk> <4e322j$mpm@unidhp.uni-c.dk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: johnp.cadlink.co.uk
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: johnp.cadlink.co.uk
- X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7
- MIME-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
-
-
- >> > I thougth that the main reason why ChipRAM is slower than FastRAM is
- because
- >> > ChipRAM is clocked in 7.14 MHz and your precios FastRAM is clock in
- whatever
- >> > your CPU is (ie 25 MHz)
- >> >
- >> > Am I wrong ?
- >
- >> Ram chips themselves don't have a "speed" as such. They just sit there
- >> holding information until the cpu reads or writes - the access time of ram
- >> is the only matter which need be considered (and even then, only in
- >> certain circumstances - see below).
- >
- >Wrong. RAM chips have a speed rating. There is a minimum number of ns that
- >must separate each access.
-
- oh my god!!! Rask!! you follow me everywhere!! there I am tinking Ha no one to
- shame me up and what do I see reading the news.......Rask!! hows it going m8 ??
- still using Mosaic?
-
- Rask you are correct again, Ram DO have speed ratings, the most common is 60
- and 72 you should be able to tell what you have by looking at the simm (there
- should be a lable with it printed on!!
-
- see ya
-
-
-