Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!husc6!harvard!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!glacier!Navajo!rokicki
From: rokicki@Navajo.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Fraud And Deceit (I'm mad as hell)
Message-ID: <737@Navajo.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 12-Jul-86 19:30:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: Navajo.737
Posted: Sat Jul 12 19:30:17 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 07:03:38 EDT
References: <1353@well.UUCP> <1811@shark.UUCP> <567@3comvax.UUCP> <1400@well.UUCP> <1391@amiga.amiga.UUCP>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 27

In article <1391@amiga.amiga.UUCP>, jimm@amiga.UUCP (James D. Mackraz) writes:
> We have had reports that the drhystone benchmark runs significantly
> slower in extended memory than in a 512K machine, if that extended
> memory is CardCo.  Those with CardCo mem, can you check?  It would
> be interesting to measure differences in copying large files from
> RAM:a to RAM:b for a 512K machine vs. CardCo extended.

I've got one of those CardCo boards, and yes, it does slow the machine
down something awful.  Here are the stats:

	512K machine, 1.1		988 dhrystones
	1536K machine, 1.1		674 dhrystones
		Loss			 31.8%
	512K machine, 1.2 beta II	983 dhrystones
	1536K machine, 1.2 beta II	664 dhrystones
		Loss			 32.5%

Which means I just paid so many hundreds of dollars to SLOW DOWN MY
MACHINE!  Now, I've designed memory boards before; it's not that
difficult to make the RAM run with no wait states on a 7.2 MHz
machine.  To slow it down so much seems to indicate that two wait
states are being introduced for EVERY MEMORY REFERENCE!  This
is inexcusable.

(So is my use of capitals above, but I'm pissed.  I've been working
very hard squeezing every ounce of performance out of my programs, and
something like this comes out and destroys it all.)