Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: SRAM and BURST mode on 3000 Message-ID: <19077@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 18 Feb 91 16:44:48 GMT References: <1408@ewu.UUCP> <5665@mnetor.UUCP> <8332@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <18764@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Feb11.015011.621@medsys.uucp> <18888@cbmvax.commodore.com> Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 25 In article stefanb@cip-s02.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Stefan Becker) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>They don't stay on because you don't want them on, probably. The OS folks, >>like Bryce, have done testing to find out which parameters, both in RAMSEY >>and 68030 cache control, yield the best performance. >But why then pay the extra price for SCRAM???? First of all, you shouldn't pay more for SCRAM, it costs the same to make as PRAM. C= certainly doesn't pay any extra. Secondly, what's wrong with using burst mode, the way the OS sets things up. This gives you a clear 10%-20% speedup with SCRAM, and virtually never causes a speed loss. You obviously want your system set up to run as fast as possible. The silly benchmarks most people use will mislead you on this, the operating system won't. >Mail : Stefan Becker, Holsteinstrasse 9, D-5100 Aachen /// Only -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett