Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!caip!sri-spam!nike!oliveb!glacier!navajo!rokicki
From: rokicki@navajo.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Memory board timings
Message-ID: <746@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Sun, 20-Jul-86 15:25:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: navajo.746
Posted: Sun Jul 20 15:25:33 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jul-86 07:43:07 EDT
References: <25@unc.unc.UUCP> <440@oscvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 14

[-] Postnews Window ===================================================[=][=]

> >Were these tests run with the benchmarks *located* in the extra memory,
> >or were they just run with the extra memory attached? Of course, I would
> >assume the memory was being used, but I would like to see this explicitly 
> >stated.
> I can't speak for the CARDCO tests, but the tests I did were with the
> benchmark program actually running in the "fast" ram.

In the CardCo tests, they were run with the benchmarks located in the fast
RAM.  As soon as I get to my office with my soldering iron, I'll let you
know how fast a fixed CardCo board runs.

-tom