SPONSORED LINKS
> > > On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Randy Whittle wrote: > > > Why is it, I wonder, that caches are skimped on so regularly in > > Notebooks? My 701 has a 16 KB cache. Even a *small* cache is better than none! > > And, in fact, a small cache is usually as good as a big one. The jump in > hit rates is usually pretty slender when you move to a larger cache. > > Yes, but (as one of the previous mails suggested by means of asking): the 16KB cache of the 701 is PRIMARY cache. It's not a feature of the 701 but of the i486/4.