Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!ninja!sys1!techsup!cpe!neese From: neese@cpe.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: MCA (was: message <1634624868@r Message-ID: <12400008@cpe> Date: 5 Jul 88 14:37:00 GMT References: <902@isrnix.UUCP> Lines: 34 Nf-ID: #R:isrnix.UUCP:902:cpe:12400008:000:1683 Nf-From: cpe.UUCP!neese Jul 5 09:37:00 1988 >>What he didn't tell you the first time around that his machine: >> Roy Neese >> UUCP @ ihnp4!sys1!cpe!neese > ^^^ >is a system owned by Tandy's Computer Products Engineering group. > >Come now, Roy...didn't you want to admit that you were just plugging >your own products? > >the tandy favoratism was noticable, but more unfortunate was the false >claim that 32 bit mca memory expansions exact a 400% performance penalty >on a model 80. infoworld compared mca memory expansions several issues >ago, including the ast advantage/2-386. they found that board to be equal >to the planer board memory speed. my inquiries to other board makers abt >this claim turn up only denials of any penalty. > >also unmentioned was the newly announed model 70-a71, running at 25mhz >and using memory cache. they may be late, but it can't be argued (as it >was) that ibm can't or won't make performance-competitive products. Actually, I was not plugging our product, but simply stating the performance hits we have noticed with our Model 80-111 and the AST MC Memory Board running SCO Xenix. Regardless of what infoworld stated, there is a penalty for accessing memory that occupies an MC slot. This is by design. Planar memory will always be faster than MC memory. I mentioned the 5000MC because it is the only other MC system I have to compare to the 80-111. It does run circles around that system, which happens to be my opinion and fact as well. While the posting may have favored toward Tandy, I haven't seen much to refute what I stated and still stand behind it. Roy Neese UUCP @ ihnp4!sys1!cpe!neese