SPONSORED LINKS
On Thu, 23 Oct 97 11:09:24 HST, David Ross wrote: >I said: >> >> they claim). Here are Evergreen's results: >> > >> >Well, we all know that this is false. > >Paul said: >> It's interesting how something can appear so desirable, something >> that makes our machines faster, and it turns out that the truth was bent. > >To make things clear, I'm not asserting that their *benchmarks* are false >(though I *do* wish they'd followed the ZD requirements of explicitly >reporting all details of the testing - for all we know, on the DX2-50 >test they had the machine set for no HD cache, 'mobile system' file >system in the Performance settings, and high color, while on the AMD >version they might have had a big cache, 'network server' set, and >low-res graphics). I was expressing what John Kim has made more >explicit, that the AMD chip will be 100mhz instead of 133mhz on this >machine, except in the almost completely unlikely event that they've >tweaked the machine's clock. > >BTW, the AMDchip can actually be safely overclocked to 160mhz (i.e., a 40mhz >machine bus speed); I'm curently doing this on my home desktop (mainly >used by my 3-year-old for games these days). > >- David > > And then another obvious problem would be cooling off the AMD chip. I wonder if these upgrade people would put that into perspective. And would RAM make a difference, in speed? I know that the 701 uses 70 nanosecond RAM (non-parity, I believe). Paul