Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!claris!outpost.UUCP!peirce
From: peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: IIci cache cards - is bigger better?
Message-ID: <0B010004.ys85cc@outpost.UUCP>
Date: 2 Apr 91 17:19:39 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.UUCP
Organization: Peirce Software
Lines: 26
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.3


In article <25351@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt4586c@prism.gatech.EDU (WILLETT,THOMAS CARTER) writes:
> 
> We IIci owners now have available a reasonable selection of cache cards.
> They come in three basic sizes:  32K (apple), 64K (daystar), and 128K (micron).
> So the big question must be:  is more static ram better?  has anybody seen
> any comparisons between various cache cards?

If price isn't an issue (or power consumption), then sure, bigger
is better.

Remember that performace doesn't go up linearly with size though.  64K isn't 
twice as fast as 32K.  And 128K isn't really all that much faster that 64K,
no where near two times faster!

I picked up a 64K cache since it was the same price as the 32K.  If
you can get a good deal like this, great, but otherwise don't waste
your money on a bigger cache, 32K gives you MOST of the performance
boost that a cache can provide.  Bigger caches give some boost, but
if the price is much more, it may not be worth it.

-- michael

--  Michael Peirce         --   outpost!peirce@claris.com
--  Peirce Software        --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--  Macintosh Programming  --   San Jose, California 95117
--           & Consulting  --   (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE