sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (05/02/90)
In-Reply-To: message from brianw@microsoft.UUCP When referring to the Rocket Chip >>Anyway, it speeds up the // line (not GS) but running a 128 byte cache and This is incorrect. I believe that the Rocket chip has an 8 K cache. >Only 128 bytes? Thats incredibly small. The "classic" Transwarp card caches the entire 128K RAM plus it caches the 12K of ROM If you check A+ April 89, page 24, you'll see a dicussion of the Transwarp, the Zipchip-4, and the Rocketchip-5. You'll see that it has 16K of cache (except I beleve that its actually 8kx16 because 8 bits are used for the cache tag) that speeds up the first 1.6 meg of RAM. You'll also see that in all A+'s tests (sorting a 54K AW file, counting 1000 for:next's), the Rocketchip was as good as or BETTER than the Zipchip. Indeed, it WAS a superior product. >In my opinion, the AE TransWarp is better than any CPU socket accelerator >because it allows you total freedom in selecting processor chips. For Besides the higher power consumption, a TW (or TWII) uses a precious slot. At any rate, your "total freedom in selecting processor chips" may be important to you, but it is completely unimportant for 99% of Apple II users, as a 65C02 is all they will EVER need. Not all of us play with Merlin/16 on an 8-bit Apple... BTW: Note that the TWII used not a chip from Zip, but a chip from Rocket. If AE (which usually designs their own stuff) had enough confidence in Rocket's design, it says something quite good about the product. Too bad a legal decision has prevented AE from selling the TWII, and Rocket from selling their Zip killer. >You cannot use the 16 bit chip with the Zip or Rocket >Chips. As I said, except for a VERY few... who cares? Is this relevent for an AppleWorks, Publish-It, ProTERM, educational software, user? Nuff said. >Brian Willoughby UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com