gt4586c@prism.gatech.EDU (WILLETT,THOMAS CARTER) (04/02/91)
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? -- thomas willett Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta gt4586c@prism.gatech.edu "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Salvor Hardin (Foundation)
sharp@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) (04/02/91)
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? > Hiya, No, bigger is NOT better. Studies have shown that 32K is all you need. There is no significant difference between 32K, 64K or 128K cache cards. maurice -- Maurice Sharp MSc. Student (403) 220 7690 University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 GEnie M.SHARP5
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (04/03/91)
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
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr1.222131.1696@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>, sharp@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) writes: > No, bigger is NOT better. Studies have shown that 32K is all you > need. There is no significant difference between 32K, 64K or 128K > cache cards. > This follows exactly what I have heard. In fact, I might even give Apple`s CACHE card a try. (In case anyone missed it, Apple is shipping again!) Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu