Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!boulder!uswat!csn!tigger!atk
From: atk@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Alan T. Krantz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.laptops
Subject: Re: Dataworld LP-320 analysis
Message-ID: <1990Dec7.162834.24566@csn.org>
Date: 7 Dec 90 16:28:34 GMT
References: <1990Dec4.223137.23174@aeras.uucp> <1990Dec6.164923.5100@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@csn.org
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: tigger.colorado.edu

In article <1990Dec6.164923.5100@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gcw20877@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George Wang) writes:
>In article <1990Dec4.223137.23174@aeras.uucp> andrew@aeras.uucp (Andrew Ward) writes:
>>In response to the inquiries on the Dataworld LP-320 laptop, I have
>>the  following comments:
>>
>>The anomalies are why a 16 Mhz 386 has a higher compute index
>>than a 20 Mhz 386, and why there was an increase in performance
>>in one of the CI results on the LP-320.
>I too have noticed this!! I suspect that the internal bus may
>be limited somehow in the laptop.. I think the motherboard may
>have been designed non-optimally.. I've got a 5.25" 1.2 meg drive

What is probably more likely is that this 20 Mhz system has 1 or 2 
wait-states and the 16 Mhz has 0 or 1 wait states.  This info should
be in the documentation of both computers. If not you can probably 
figure it out by the speed of the memory (just look at the chips)...

I think a 20mhz would have to have 1 wait state without a cache (using
common 1mb chips) and the 16mhz could just squeeze by with 0 wait
states using common 1mb chips (doubled banked) - but I forget these things...
Anyways....




 
------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Mail:    1830 22nd street      Email: atk@boulder.colorado.edu|
|           Apt 16                Vmail: Home:   (303) 939-8256  |
|           Boulder, Co 80302            Office: (303) 492-8115  |
------------------------------------------------------------------