Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!srhqla!demott!kdq
From: kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Cache vs. Mhz
Message-ID: <442@demott.COM>
Date: 2 Aug 90 01:20:42 GMT
References: <1366@sixhub.UUCP>
Reply-To: kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt)
Organization: DeMott Electronics Co., Van Nuys CA
Lines: 25

In article <1366@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes:
>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.

>[...] 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 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.

    Interesting calculations.  A 25MHz processor is is 25% faster than
a 20MHz processor, but the cache improves the slower machine by 15%.  Seems
to me that the 25Mhz processor will be 110% the speed of the 20MHz, which
seems a significant difference to me.
-- 
 _
Kevin D. Quitt         demott!kdq   kdq@demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St.   Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975   FAX (818) 997-1190  MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.