home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!claris!NewsWatcher!user
- From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
- Subject: Re: MacIIsi cache: 32K vs. 64K ?
- Message-ID: <mike_steiner-061192150518@192.35.50.131>
- Date: 6 Nov 92 23:06:21 GMT
- References: <1992Nov4.203400.25811@wdl.loral.com>
- Sender: news@claris.com
- Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.misc
- Lines: 31
- Nntp-Posting-Host: steiner
-
- In article <1992Nov4.203400.25811@wdl.loral.com>, mlf@wdl30.wdl.loral.com
- (Mike L Forster) wrote:
- >
- > Hi.
- >
- > I own a MacIIsi. I plan to add a port adapter, FPU, and RAM cache. My
- > question is: Should I add 64K of RAM cache, or is 32K sufficient?
- >
- > One or two vendors sell an adapter card with 2 PDS slots, an FPU, and
- > 32K of on-board RAM cache. Many vendors sell dual-port adapters, with
- > 2 PDS slots and an FPU; then, one adds a PDS card with 64K of cache,
- > using 1 of the 2 PDS slots.
- >
- > I've noticed that one adds 64K of RAM cache to a MacIIci. But, the
- > MacIIvx has 32K of RAM cache on-board.
- >
- > What are the tradeoffs? If 32K is sufficient, that option is more
- > attractive to me.
- >
- > Thanks, in advance, for your advice.
- >
- > > Mike Forster mlf@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
-
- Apple says that 32K is sufficient, and that any more is wasted. The
- magazines tend to confirm this, with small gains between 32 and 64K and
- virtually no gain above 64K.
-
- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
- |Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
- |one to put here, so I won't. All normal disclaimers apply. |
- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
-