SPONSORED LINKS
> 2. Does the lack of a L2 cache hurt its performance severely? I'll be > doing a bit of Photoshop work and would like to know if I should wait > until a more powerful 560 comes around (has one been announced? any > insider gossip?). The 560 graphics is relatively slow; this might be a function not only of the graphics chip but also of the lack of cache. (Wintune 95 reports that my P133 Micron Transport is almost 3 times as fast as the 560 for 8 bit 800x600 graphics.) Some smaller, cache-optimized software will likely also run much faster with a cache. However, these are all very fast machines; I alway find it amusing when a machine's performance is criticized in a review because it was the slowest of the machines under consideration, since it would almost surely have been the fastest machine in a similar review a few months earlier. (On the other hand, program inertia seems to be increasing as fast as CPU speed: MS Publisher 97 actually drags on this machine, and Word 97 is noticeably less zippy than was WordStar on the 4Mhz Z80 CPM machine I used to use 15 years ago.) - David