riscy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 21066 board (was Wild idea)

To: Multiple recipients of list <riscy@sunsite.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: 21066 board (was Wild idea)
From: ""Michael K. Johnson"" <johnsonm>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 19:06:30 -0500
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 30 Jan 94 19:54:58 -0400." <9401302354.AA06507@pX4.stfx.ca>
Reply-to: johnsonm
Hai Pham writes:
>Besides, doesn't it have the cache controller & some sort of video
>accelerator built in or something?  Cache chips aren't very expensive once
>the cache controller has been taken care off.

Right.  That was the point that I was trying to make, and failed
utterly to mention in the process.  Thanks.  Yes, how much can 256 or
512 K of SRAM cost?

And yes, video is built in.  I'd guess that there's not a lot of
acceleration, except maybe things like bitblt, knowing DEC's stance on
acceleration.  Essentially, the cpu is a better accelerator for most
things than an accelerated card, given sufficient CPU/video memory
bandwidth.  However, I haven't seen any specs.  I *would* expect to be
able to do decent opaque moves with this, though.  I'd expect to pay
$50-100 max for cache ram and $100-200 max for VRAM.  Don't know if
the design requires VRAM or DRAM, but VRAM gives much better refresh
rates and greater bandwidth, and is to be highly prefered.

Video, PCI, and L2 cache controllers are all built in.  Sounds good to
me...

michaelkjohnson
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>