Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Transwarp vs Zip Message-ID: <8804101743.aa02087@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Date: 10 Apr 88 22:41:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 35 Heiko Blume writes: >>I know the Zip chip is coming out and claims to do the >>same thing for $130, > >sure wont, since the transwarp card has 256KB so it doesnt have >to use the slower ram on the motherboard / 80 col card Note that the Zip chip, like some other accelerator boards uses a memory cache. While that means it won't run entirely at the 3.6MHz speed, it isn't slowed to 1MHz either (except for 5.25 inch drive I/O which is timing dependent). I use an accelerator with a 5K cache (the Zip chip alleges an 8K cache) and the timing difference between things like a data base sort or a global search and replace with my word processor is 2.8 (My //e is 2.8 times faster with the accelerator active). I'd expect the Zip chip to perform about as well. So, the cost difference between the Transwarp card and the Zip chip buys a relative speed improvement of roughly 28.5%. Even the transwarp can't get away from the slower RAM on the 80 column card since it still has to use that to display doesn't it (even by-passing the card's ROM and accessing the ctrc directly doesn't make the display much faster -- about 4800 baud display rate is all an Apple 80 column card will do)? --------------------- Disclaimer: If my employer tries to express my opinion, I'll sue for violation of the "look and feel" of this message! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut