Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bnrgate!bnr-fos!bmers58!mlord
From: mlord@bmers58.UUCP (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Extended vs Expanded
Keywords: Everex 3000 Extended Expanded RAM
Message-ID: <1215@bmers58.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 90 16:47:43 GMT
References: <6258@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mlord@bmers58.UUCP (Mark Lord)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 29

In article <6258@ubc-cs.UUCP> jalbert@cs.ubc.ca (Francois Jalbert) writes:
>
>    I ran two benchmarks: copy 32 times a 128Kb file from the RAM disk 
>to the RAM disk, and copy 8 times a 1Mb file from the RAM disk to the 
>RAM disk. All with VERIFY and BREAK on. Here are the results in seconds: 
>                                              128Kb      1Mb
>            384Kb extended on main board      5.82       N/A
>            3072Kb extended on Everex         6.81      11.81
>            3456Kb all extended combined      6.37      11.65
>            3072Kb expanded on Everex         7.20      13.29
>    It becomes clear that extended memory is faster than expanded (EMS 
>3.2) when RAM disks are concerned. As expected, the extended memory on 

The reason for this finding is that the EMS is running in 8-bit mode
(in hardware) as you noted later in your article.  The extended memory
on this board *always* runs in 16-bit mode, which really helps massive
data copying (assuming 16-bit instructions are used, as in EDISK.SYS).

This data corelates closely with my own findings with this board about
a year ago.  

-Mark


-- 
+----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Mark S. Lord                           | Hey, It's only MY opinion. |
| ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!mlord%bmers58 | Feel free to have your own.|
+----------------------------------------+----------------------------+