Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:24210 comp.unix.xenix:12615 comp.unix.i386:7405
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Cache vs. Mhz
Message-ID: <1366@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jul 90 01:45:09 GMT
References: <1990Jul25.030258.11568@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Followup-To: comp.unix.questions
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 22

In article <1990Jul25.030258.11568@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> chaiklin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Seth Chaiklin) writes:
| 
| I have a dilemma.  I must take either a 25 Mhz 386 machine
| with no cache or a 20 Mhz 386 machine with a 64K cache.

  Since anything which runs on the CPU uses the cahce (unless you turn
it off) the choice of o/s is not a problem. The choice of faster or
slower depends on your floating point use. If you are going to use a
coprocessor and do lots of f.p. you might see it faster with the 25MHz.
For almost any other application I would go with the 20MHz and cache.
The cache will give you about 15% improvement with a 1w/s memory. I
would be very sure whats happening if the 25MHz machine claims to be
0w/s, unless it is running fast interleaved memory.

  I don't think there will be a great deal of diference in performance
in these, oddly enough, so I doubt that you can make a seriously bad
decision.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me