Cache vs. Mhz

[Kevin D. Quitt]

In article <1366 at sixhub.UUCP> davidsen at sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes:
>In article <1990Jul25.030258.11568 at cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> chaiklin at cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Seth Chaiklin) writes:
>| I have a dilemma.  I must take either a 25 Mhz 386 machine
>| with no cache or a 20 Mhz 386 machine with a 64K cache.

>[...] If you are going to use a
>coprocessor and do lots of f.p. you might see it faster with the 25MHz.
>For almost any other application I would go with the 20MHz and cache.
>The cache will give you about 15% improvement with a 1w/s memory.
			       ^^^
>  I don't think there will be a great deal of diference in performance
>in these, oddly enough, so I doubt that you can make a seriously bad
>decision.

    Interesting calculations.  A 25MHz processor is is 25% faster than
a 20MHz processor, but the cache improves the slower machine by 15%.  Seems
to me that the 25Mhz processor will be 110% the speed of the 20MHz, which
seems a significant difference to me.
-- 
 _
Kevin D. Quitt         demott!kdq   kdq at demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St.   Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975   FAX (818) 997-1190  MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.