11 Nov
2006
11 Nov
'06
7:24 a.m.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Jim Leonard wrote:
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:33:42 -0600
From: Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
;
Subject: Re: Overclocking ATs
Chuck Guzis wrote:
That's not really a fair comparison, since that product note is from 1997,
long after the time period we're talking about.
Doing some more thinking, it's possible that some 386 PCs are hampered by
memory wait states more than some implementations of 286 PCs.
Not sure but we waited for 33 MHz 386's because our PC layout software ran
significantly faster on our 20 MHz 286's than 20 MHz 386's. It was a
noticeable difference, maybe 20%...
How is
that possible? The 386 improved many instructions to run in fewer
clocks...
Strange, but apparently true in some cases:
http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an111.pdf --
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
Peter Wallace
Mesa Electronics
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.